answering islam

Updated & Revised

ANSWERINGI SLAM

The Crescent in Light of the Cross

NORMAN L. GEISLERABDUL SALEEB

ANSWERING

ISLAM

ANSWERING

T H E C R E S C E N TI N L I G H T

O F T H E C R O S S

SECOND EDITION

Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb

EI BakerBooksA Division of Baker Book House CoGrand Rapids, Michigan 49516

© 1993, 2002 by Norman L. Geisler

Published by Baker Booksa division of Baker Book House CompanyP.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, Michigan 495 1 6-6287

Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy,recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception isbrief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Geisler, Norman L.Answering Islam : the crescent in light of the cross / Norman L. Geisler and

Abdul Saleeb.— 2nd ed.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-8010-6430-9 (pbk.)1. Islam—Relations—Christianity. 2. Christianity and other religions—Islam.

3. Christianity—Apologetic works. 4. Islam—Controversial literature. I. Saleeb,Abdul. II. Title.BPI72.G45 2002239—dc2I 2002002260

For information about all releases from Baker Book House, visit our web site:http:/ /www.bakerbooks.com

Third printing, May 2003

CONTENTS

Preface to Second Edition 7Acknowledgments 9Introduction 11

PART 1 THE BASIC DOCTRINES OF ORTHODOX ISLAM

1. Understanding Islamic Monotheism 152. The Islamic View of Creation and Man 343. Prophets 524. Muhammad 705. The Qur 'an 916. Endtimes and Salvation 109

PART 2 A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO BASIC MUSLIM BELIEFS

7. An Evaluation of Islamic Monotheism 1358. An Evaluation of Muhammad 151

9. An Evaluation of the Qur 'an 183

PART 3 A POSITIVE DEFENSE OF THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

10. A Defense of the Bible 213

11. A Defense of the Deity of Christ 23312. A Defense of the Trinity 26313. A Defense of Salvation by the Cross 278

Appendix 1: Muslim Sects and Movements 295Appendix 2: Muslim Religious Practices 301

Appendix 3: The Gospel of Barnabas 303

5

6 Contents

Appendix 4: Popular Muslim Accusations against the NewTestament 309Appendix 5: Islam and Violence 319Appendix 6: Black Islam 331

Glossary 337Bibliography 343Suggested Reading 349Index of Qur ' anic Suras 351Index of Persons 357Index of Subjects 363

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

September 11, 2001, changed the world. For one thing, Christians canno longer ignore the worldwide challenge of Islam. It is this challengethat assures the future of books like Answering Islam. Never in our wild-est imagination did we believe this book would hit the front page of TheWall Street Journal (Nov. 26, 2001) which declared:

Religious publishing houses have produced a vast library of how-to bookson recruiting Muslims. One of the best known is "Answering Islam," co-written by Norman Geisler, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, inCharlotte, N.C., and Abdul Saleeb, a Muslim convert to Christianity. Pub-lished in 1993, the book had sold more than 42,000 copies.

What The Journal failed to say was that over half of these were sold inthe first two months after September 11, a pace that remains unabated todate. Actually, the book was gradually dying before the towers fell. To putit mildly, the interest in the threat of Islam to Christianity was minimalbefore 9/11. That is understandable, since we had just survived the Com-munist threat, the Humanist threat, and were still undergoing the NewAge threat. American Christians were simply not ready for another threat.

Today the tide has turned. Sales of the Qur'an are soaring. Not becauseMuslims are becoming more devout nor because converts to Islamincreased dramatically as a result of the terrorists aerial bombing of theNew York Trade Center. Rather, it is because non-Muslims suddenly real-ize that the religion of Islam, as embraced by millions of radical Muslims,has become a real threat, not only to Christianity but to freedom of reli-gion in general and to our very way of life as Americans.

We have taken the occasion of these recent events to revise whathas suddenly become a very popular book. Changes have been madethroughout by updating, adding, and revising the entire manuscript. Inaddition, the section on Jihad has been amplified considerably by addingan entire Appendix on "Islam and Violence. " We have also used theopportunity to add new material in crucial places to strengthen theChristian response to Islam.

7

8 Preface to Second Edition

Like many other battles in history, we believe that the pen is sharperthan the sword. The real war will be won with words, not weapons. Thesuccess of Christianity over Islam as a world religion rises or falls on thebattlefield of ideas.

Today, Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over onebillion adherents. That is one out of every five persons on earth. Indeed,Islam is now reputed to be the fastest growing religion in the world. Thisand recent events make it necessary for us to refocus our efforts to defendthe Faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). As Thomas Aquinasis credited by history with answering Islam in the thirteenth century (inhis Summa contra Gentiles), even so we must renew efforts to thwart theefforts of militant Muslims to destroy Christianity. This revised volume isoffered as a humble beginning in this direction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to express our deep appreciation for those who have laboredto make this manuscript better. This includes two Islamic experts, Dr.Kameel F. Kilada and Dr. Patrick Cate. In addition, David Johnson,Sharon Coomer, and our wives, Kenna and Barbara, spent endless hourstyping, checking references, and doing appendixes. For all their help weare deeply grateful.

9

INTRODUCTION

Islam has rapidly grown to become the second largest religion in theworld, with over one billion adherents—nearly one in every five per-sons on earth. In the United States there are presently more Muslimsthan Methodists. The most rapid growth is in the African Americancommunity.

What is more, Islam claims to be the true religion for humankind. Itaffirms that Muhammad is the "Seal of the Prophets," the last and thegreatest of all prophets who superseded all prophets before him, includ-ing Jesus. The Qur'an is believed to be the verbally inspired Word of God,dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel from the eternal original inheaven. It is said to contain the full and final revelation of God, surpass-ing and completing all previous revelations. By any measure these areoutstanding claims that challenge all other religions and deserve carefulscrutiny by any sincere seeker of truth.

In this book we propose to do three things. First, in Part One we willattempt to state, as clearly as we can, the fundamental beliefs of Islamconcerning God, creation, prophets, Muhammad, the Qur'an, and salva-tion. This will be expressed primarily through Muslim sources such as theQur'an, Muslim tradition (the Hadith), and Islamic commentators.

In Part Two we will attempt to respond to basic Muslim beliefs in God,Muhammad, and the Qur'an. Here we will analyze criticisms that havebeen offered and attempt to come to a conclusion as to whether there issupport for the validity of the Islamic claims. Particular attention will bepaid to the factual basis for and internal consistency of these claims.

Finally, in Part Three we will examine the evidence for the Christiancounterclaim. Here arguments offered in support of Christian claims willbe scrutinized in order to determine their veracity. The appendixes willdeal with special topics such as Muslim sects, religious practices, the Gos-pel of Barnabas, Muslim use of modern biblical criticism, Islam and vio-lence, and Black Islam.

My coauthor, using a pseudonym, was reared as a Muslim in anIslamic country. His familiarity with Arabic and Muslim beliefs and prac-

11

12 Introduction

tices has added a very significant dimension to this book. Together withmy background in Christian theology and philosophy, we have made anattempt not only to understand the Muslim and Christian views, but toexamine them carefully in light of the evidence. We are in agreement withthe Socratic dictum that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Andwe believe as well that the unexamined faith is not worth believing. Sinceboth orthodox Islam and Christianity claim to be the true religion, it isincumbent upon thinking persons to examine carefully the evidenceoffered by both and to make their own decision in view of the evidence.

Norman L. Geisler

Part One

THE BASIC DOCTRINESOF ORTHODOX ISLAM

This book is an attempt to understand and evaluate theclaims of orthodox Islam from a Christian point of view. It is ourbelief that it is not possible to evaluate another viewpoint fairlywithout first understanding it. Since one of us is a Christian andthe other was reared as a Muslim, we believe we have an advan-tage in understanding both points of view. Further, we appeal pre-dominantly to the primary sources of each religion, especially tothe Qur'an and the Bible. In order to enhance our understandingof each, we selected standard teachers and commentators fromeach religion. In this first part we try our best to set forth as objec-tively as possible the basic doctrines of orthodox Islam, steeringaway from differing opinions of rival sects and emphasizing whatmost Muslims believe.

1UNDERSTANDING ISLAMIC

MONOTHEISM

Like most religions, there are several sects (see Appendix 1). Here wehave tried to emphasize what most Muslims hold in common.

The strength of Islam is neither in its rituals nor in its ethics, but in itsgrasp of one great idea: monotheism. Among the religions of the worldthere is not one that has a shorter creed than Islam and not one whosecreed is so well known and so often repeated. The whole system of Mus-lim theology, philosophy, and religious life is summed up in seven words:La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah, "There is no god but Allahand Muhammad is Allah's Apostle." This is the motto of the Muslim'sfamily life, the ritualistic formula that welcomes the infant as a believer,and the final message that is whispered in the ear of the dying. By repeat-ing these words, the unbeliever is transformed into a Muslim and thebackslider is welcomed back into a spiritual brotherhood. By this creedthe faithful are called to prayer five times daily, and it is the platform onwhich all the warring sects of Islam unite. It is the very foundation of theIslamic religion. 1

Since the idea of God is fundamental to Islam, this chapter will analyzethe doctrine of God as presented in the Qur'an and orthodox Islamic the-ology. First, we will consider the significance of the very word for God,"Allah." Second, we will attempt to explain the nature and character ofGod as understood by orthodox Muslims. Third, we will focus our discus-sion on the relationship that exists between God and the rest of his cre-ation, especially human beings.

1. Samuel M. Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God (New York: American Tract Society,1905).

15

16 The Basic Doctrines of Orthodox Islam

MEANING OF THE TERM "ALLAH "

Allah is the personal name for God in Islam. We make no distinction inthis book, as some do, between the word "Allah" and the English word"God. " As one well-known Muslim author puts it, "Al Lah means 'theDivinity' in Arabic: it is a single God, implying that a correct transcriptioncan only render the exact meaning of the word with the help of theexpression 'God.' For the Muslims, al lah is none other than the God ofMoses and Jesus."2

In agreement with this warning, Kenneth Cragg, the noted Christianscholar of Islam, also claims that " since both Christians and Muslim faithsbelieve in One supreme sovereign Creator-God, they are obviously refer-ring when they speak of Him, under whatever terms, to the same Being.To suppose otherwise would be confusing. It is important to keep in mindthat though the apprehensions differ, their theme is the same. The differ-ences, which undoubtedly exist, between the Muslim and the Christianunderstanding of God are far-reaching and must be patiently studied. Butit would be fatal to all our mutual tasks to doubt that One and the sameGod over all was the reality in both. "3 Arab Christians use the term "Allah"for God. Of course, their understanding of what this term means differsfrom that of Muslims, but both have the same referent in mind.

ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD " ALLAH "

There has been much speculation and endless discussion among Mus-li m exegetes and lexicographers concerning the real significance of theArabic word "Allah." A well-respected Muslim commentator, Beidhawi,suggests that Allah is derived "from an [invented] root illaha = to be in per-plexity, because the mind is perplexed when it tries to form the idea of theInfinite!"4 Still, "according to the opinion of some Muslim theologians, it isinfidelity (kufr) to hold that the word has any derivation whatever! . . . Theysay that God is not begotten, and so His name cannot be derived. He is thefirst, and had an Arabic name before the creation of the worlds." 5 Theauthor of the Muheet-el-Muheet dictionary says: "Allah is the name of nec-essary Being. There are twenty different views as to the derivation of thisname of the Supreme; the most probable is that its root is illah, the pastparticiple form, or the measure fi'al, from the verb ilaho = to worship, towhich the article was prefixed to indicate the supreme object of worship." 6

2. Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, trans. Pannell and Bucaille (Par-is: Editions Seghers, 1988), 120-21.

3. Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 36.4. From the famous Muslim exegete Beidhawi (d. Al). 1307), as cited by Zwemer, 24.5. Related from Muhammad by Abu Huraira and cited by ibid., 24.6. Ibid., 23.

Understanding Islamic Monotheism 17

Ajijola, a Muslim author and apologist, writes, "In the Arabic Languagethe word 'ilah' means 'one who is worshipped

' .... The word 'Allah', onthe other hand, is the essential personal name of God. 'La ilaha illa-Allah'would literally mean, 'There is no "ilah" other than the One Great Beingknown by the name Allah.' " 7

Cragg, in his highly acclaimed work The Call of the Minaret, notes,"The Arabic form ilahun meaning 'a god ' is similar to the Hebrew andAramaic words for deity. When used with the definite article Al-Ilahumeaning 'The God' the l consonant of the article coalesces with the sameletter in the first syllable of the word eliding the i sound to make Al-lah.If we take the word to be of genuine Arabic form this is the obvious ori-gin. If, as some scholars believe, the word does not have this origin butis historically derived from a sister language, its significance is the same.Allah means 'God' which connotation English achieves by dismissingeven the definite article and using the capital letter—a device which Ara-bic lacks."8

PRE-ISLAMIC USE OF THE WORD "ALLAH "

Even if the exact etymology of the word "Allah" cannot be determinedwith certainty,9 ,9 one thing we can be sure about from historical records isthat the Arabs of pre-Islamic days, despite all their idolatry, knew of andacknowledged Allah's existence as the supreme God. In proof of thispoint Cragg comments: "It is clear from the negative form of the Muslimcreed, 'There is no god except God,' that the existence and lordship ofAllah were known and recognized in pre-Islamic Arabia. The Prophet'smission was not to proclaim God's existence but to deny the existence ofall lesser deities. The fact that Muhammad's own father bore the nameAbd-Allah, slave of God, would indicate that God was known by thatname prior to Islam. "10 Cragg goes on to say that "There can be no doubtthen that the Prophet ' s contemporaries knew of a Supreme Being, but Hedid not dominate their minds. Rather they thought more directly and fre-quently of the lesser gods, the daughters, perhaps even the sons, of Allahwho were far more intimately related to their daily lives, their wars, theirharvests, and theirfertility."11

Zwemer makes a similar point: "But history establishes beyond theshadow of a doubt that even the pagan Arabs, before Mohammed's time,

7. Alhaj A. D. Ajijola, The Essence of Faith in Islam (Lahore, Pakistan: Islamic Publica-tions Ltd., 1978), 16.

8. Cragg, 37.9. For disagreement with Cragg's explanation, see Arthur Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad

and His Religion (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1958), 85.10. Cragg, 37.11. Ibid., 37-38.


knew their chief god by the name of Allah and even, in a sense, pro-claimed His unity. In pre-Islamic literature, Christian or pagan, ilah isused for any god and Al-ilah (contracted to Allah), i.e., 'o Oeos, the god,was the name of the Supreme. Among the pagan Arabs this term denotedthe chief god of their pantheon, the Kaaba, with its three hundred andsixty idols.... As final evidence, we have the fact that centuries beforeMohammed the Arabian Kaaba, or temple at Mecca, was called Beit-Allah, the house of God, and not Beit-el-Alihet, the house of idols orgods.

"12

MUHAMMAD 'S ADAPTATION OF THE WORD "ALLAH "

Some Western scholars have speculated about Muhammad's adap-tation of the word "Allah" for the one and only true God. Richard Bellwrites, " Muhammad had, in fact, to meet the difficulty which ... con-fronts all those who seek to introduce a high religion amongst a peopleof primitive ideas, whose language has no term for God quite free frompolytheistic associations. He begins by using rabb, 'Lord', generally insome combination, such as 'my Lord', 'thy Lord', or as we have seen,'Lord of this house'.

"13Bell adds, "He also uses Allah, but rather hesi-

tatingly, [maybe] . . . because it was already combined with belief insubordinate deities. Then ar-Rahman appears alongside it. The use oftoo many names, however, had its disadvantages." This he believes" might lend colour to polytheistic ideas again. He seems to have solvedthe difficulty finally by adopting Allah as the name for Deity, retainingrabb in the sense of Lord, and associating with both words, descriptiveepithets, and phrases." Apparently, "these set phrases were conve-nient as rhyming conclusions to verses. But they also had their use indinning into the minds of his community his conception of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, as Judge and Ruler, as glorious, merciful, andcompassionate."

14

Of course we must understand that from the orthodox Muslim view-point any such Western speculations about Muhammad ' s adaptationand use of the term "Allah" in the Qur'an is unacceptable (see Chapter 5).Nevertheless, the important point on which all could agree is thatMuhammad's great revolutionary achievement lies not in his mere use ofthe term "Allah," but in his conception of Allah and Allah's character.

12. Zwemer, 25-26. Also see V. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad's Mecca (Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press, 1988), 31-36.

13. Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment (London: Frank Cassand Company Ltd., 1968), 117.

14. Ibid.


THE NATURE OF ALLAHALLAH ' S EXISTENCE AND ONENESSSura 112 is dedicated to the fundamental question "Who is God?"

According to Islamic tradition, this chapter is Muhammad's definition ofAllah. Classical commentator Zamakhshari (d. A.D. 1146) says, "Ibn Abbasrelated that the Koreish said, 0 Mohammed, describe to us your Lordwhom you invite us to worship; then this Surah was revealed." 15 The surareads: " In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Say: He is God,The One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, Nor is Hebegotten; And there is none Like unto Him." This sura " is held to be wortha third of the whole Qur'an and the seven heavens and the seven earthsare founded upon it. To confess this verse, a tradition affirms, is to shedone's sins as a man might strip a tree in autumn of its leaves."

16

The cornerstone of Muhammad's message was the absolute unity andsovereignty of God. In inviting his people to join him in the worship andservice of the one true God he presents several arguments in defense ofGod's existence. The existence of God is not taken for granted in theQur'an. Rather, it points out many ways in which reason leads to beliefthat God exists.

In over eighty passages the Qur'an draws attention to the wonders ofvisible nature in the heavens and on earth, as well as to the manifestationsof life in plants and animals, especially in the realm of human life. Likewise,the physical, moral, and mental constitution of man, his origin and des-tiny, and the course of his history are appealed to as evidence of God'sexistence. Thus, there are two principal starting points for reflection aboutGod's existence: the order of nature and the order of life. As the Qur'an putsit, "Verily in the heavens And the Earth are Signs For those who believe.And in the creation Of yourselves the fact That animals are scattered(through the earth), are signs For those of assured Faith" (45:3-4; cf. 51:20-21; 41:53). The Qur'an notes that there are signs (ayat) for those who usetheir reason (ya'kilun), who reflect (yatafakkarun) and understand (yaf-kahun); to those endowed with mental or reasoning faculties (il-ulial-albab, li-uli al-nuha), who hear (yasma'un), who have eyes (uli al-absar),who know (ya'lamun), believe (yu 'minun), and are convinced (yu-kinun).Thus, all the basic sensible and intellectual capacities of human beings areappealed to as starting points in our knowledge of God.

17

15. Cited by Zwemer, 31.16. Cragg, 39. Also see Al–Bukhari , The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al–

Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Al-Medina: Islamic University), vol. 6, 493–95.17. See Mohammed A. Ahou Ridah, "Monotheism in Islam: Interpretations and Social

Manifestations," in The Concept of Monotheism in Islam and Christianity, ed. Hans Kochler(Wien, Austria: Wilhelm Braumuller, 1982), 41.


Zwemer categorizes the Qur'anic arguments for God in the followingway: "The passages of the Koran that teach the existence and unity of God(Allah) are either those that refer for proof of His unity to creation (6:96-100; 16:3-22; 27:60-65; etc.), or state that polytheism and atheism arecontrary to reason (23:119), or that dualism is self-destructive (21:22), orbring in the witness of former prophets (30:29; 21:25; 39:65; 51:50-52). "18

In addition to arguments for God's existence, the Qur'an invites itsaudience to the worship of one God by using various graphic figures ofspeech and analogies. Those who call a god apart from Allah are likesomeone who stretches out his hands to water, that it may reach hismouth, but it will never reach it (13:14). Those who take for themselvesprotectors apart from Allah are like the spiders, who make for themselveshouses that are the frailest of all (29:41). Whosoever associates anythingwith Allah is like someone who has fallen from the sky. Birds snatch himaway or the wind sweeps him down into a bottomless pit.19

The Qur'an uses two words to describe the oneness of God, ahad andwahid. Ahad is used as an adjective. It is employed in two suras to denythat God has any partner or companion associated with him. In Arabic,this form means the negation of any other number. The second word,wahid, may mean the same thing as the first word, and is used this waymany times in the Qur'an. However, it also has another usage: "the One,Same God for all." That is to say, there is only one God for Muslims, andhe is the same God for all peoples. Thus, both God's unity and singularityare implied in the Muslim concept of God ' s oneness.20

This emphasis on the Oneness of God is such a fundamental aspect ofIslam that one Muslim author writes, "In fact, Islam, like other religionsbefore it in their original clarity and purity, is nothing other than the dec-laration of the Unity of God, and its message is a call to testify to thisUnity. "21 Another Muslim writer expresses a similar point: "The Unity ofAllah is the distinguishing characteristic of Islam. This is the purest formof monotheism, i.e., the worship of Allah Who was neither begotten norbeget nor had any associates with Him in His Godhead. Islam teachesthis in the most unequivocal terms."

22

It is due to this uncompromising emphasis on God's absolute unitythat in Islam the greatest of all sins is the sin of shirk, or assigning part-ners to God. The Qur'an sternly declares "God forgiveth not [The sinofjoining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth Whom He pleaseth other

18. Zwemer, 28.19. Abou Ridah, 49.20. See Nassir El–Din El–Assad's inaugural lecture, in The Concept of Monotheism in Is-

lam and Christianity, ed. Hans Kochler, 23.21. Abdel Haleem Mahmud, The Creed of Islam (World of Islam Festival Trust, 1978), 20.22. Ajijola, 55.


sins Than this: one who joins Other gods with God, Hath strayed far, faraway [From the Right)" (4:116).

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF ALLAH

Besides the great truth of God's Oneness, or the doctrine of tawhid,which is an ever-present reminder on the pages of the Qur

' an, what elseare we to learn about God and his character? According to one Muslimauthority, late professor of Islamic thought in the University of Chicago,Fazlur Rahman (d. 1988), "the Qur ' an is no treatise about God and Hisnature: His existence, for the Qur'an, is strictly functional—He is the Cre-ator and Sustainer of the universe and of man, and particularly the giver ofguidance for man and He who judges man, individually and collectively,and metes out to him merciful justice."23 The accuracy of Rahman's com-ment is substantiated when we consult a number of Muslim works onIslam and find very little on the subject of God's essence and character,except the sense in which the ninety-nine names for God are believed toreflect the character of God. For example, in Introduction to Islam,24 writ-ten by Muhammad Hameedullah, we find chapters on the political system,judicial system, and economic system of Islam, but no chapter on thebeing and character of God! Some other contemporary books havedevoted no more than a page or two to this topic. However, it must bepointed out that within the last 1,400 years, several Muslim schools ofthought have formulated many doctrinal statements on theology proper.

One Muslim author writes: "God is the essence of existence. His Arabicname is Allah. He is The First and The Last. He is unique and nothingresembles Him in any respect. He is One and The One. He is self-sus-tained, does not need anything but everything needs Him." 25 Thisattribute is known as aseity, or self-existence. God is the Mighty and theAlmighty. He is the Willer of existing things and the things that will exist,and nothing happens apart from his will. He is the Knower of all that canbe known. His knowledge encompasses the whole universe that he hascreated and he alone sustains. God is completely sovereign over all hiscreation.

Further, "God comprehends everything, even suggestions of the mind,and the concealed secrets in the innermost part of breasts of men. God isLiving.... He is The All Hearing of all audible things. He is The All See-ing." And "He speaks with an eternal Speech not resembling the speech

23. Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an (Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica , 1980), 3.24. Muhammad Hameedullah, Introduction to Islam (Paris: Centre Culturel Islamique,

1969).25. Muhammad Abdul Rauf, Islam: Creed and Worship (Washington, D.C.: The Islamic

Center, 1974), 2-3.

22 The Basic Doctrines ofOrthodox Islam

of created things. God 's Might, Will, Knowledge, Life, Hearing, Seeingand Speech are inherent attributes in Him, and not a thing or things apartfrom him."

26

God is the Just, the Wise, the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Benef-icent, the Eternal, the Creator, the Omnipresent, and the Lord of the uni-verse. There is no god but God. In the words of the Qur'an, "God! There isno god But He—the Living, The Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber canseize Him Nor sleep. His are all things In the heavens and on earth. Whois there can intercede In His presence except As He permitteth? Heknoweth What [appeareth to His creatures As| Before or After Or Behindthem. Nor shall they compass Aught of His knowledge Except as He wil-leth. His Throne doth extend Over the heavens And the earth, and Hefeeleth No fatigue in guarding And preserving them For Ile is the MostHigh, The Supreme [in glory]" (2:255).

Muslims ascribe to God all the noble names and attributes that befithis holy character. However, traditionally they insist on learning andremembering the following thirteen attributes specifically: "Existence,Eternity, Perpetuity, Dissimilarity, Self-Sustenance, Unity, Might, Will,Knowledge, Life, Hearing, Sight and Speech."

27

Another concise statement of orthodox Islam confesses: "The Origina-tor of the world is God Most High, the One, the Eternal, the Decreeing,the Knowing, the Hearing, the Seeing, the Willing. He is not an attribute,nor a body, nor an essence, nor a thing formed, nor a thing bounded, nora thing numbered, nor a thing divided, nor a thing compounded, nor athing limited: Ile is not described by quiddity, mahiyah, nor by modality,ka4flyyah, and He does not exist in place or time. There is nothing thatresembles Him and nothing that is beyond His Knowledge and Power. Hehas qualities from all eternity existing in His essence. They are not He,nor are they other than He. These include Knowledge and Power, andLife and Strength, and Hearing and Seeing and Doing and Creating andSustaining andSpeech."28

One contemporary Muslim writer concisely describes the Islamic viewof God in this way: "In attempting to understand the nature and works ofGod, we learn that: God is only One without a partner or son. He is theCreator of the universe and everything that is to be found in the universe.He is the Compassionate and Merciful and His mercy is to all creatures. "

Further, "He is just. He is the Guide and Guardian of everything. He ispre-existent and eternal. Ile is all-knowing and all-wise. He is loving andprovident, and His mercy for His creatures knows no boundary. He is all-

26. Ibid., 3.27. Ibid., 4-5.28. See Cragg, 60-61.


powerful and the Supreme Master of all the worlds. He is holy and cannotcommit sins or do evil. He is independent and unique.

"29

THE NINETY-NINE NAMES OF ALLAH

Another typical Islamic answer to the question "Who is God?" is topoint out Allah's "most beautiful names." The Qur'anic basis for this isfound in 59:22—24:

God is Ile, than Whom There is no other god; Who knows [all things] Bothsecret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. God is He, than WhomThere is no other god; The Sovereign, the Holy One, The Source of Peace[and Perfection], The Guardian of Faith, The Preserver of Safety, TheExalted in Might, The Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to God! [High is He]Above the partners They attribute to Him. He is God, the Creator, TheEvolver, The Bestower of Forms [Or Colours]. To Him belong The MostBeautiful Names: Whatever is in The heavens and on earth, Doth declareHis Praise and Glory: And He is the Exalted In Might, the Wise.

Besides this Qur'anic admonition, the Islamic tradition relates that" Muhammad said, 'Verily, there are ninety-nine names of God and who-ever recites them shall enter Paradise. "'30 Regarding Allah 's most beauti-ful names, Arthur Jeffery, the great European Islamicist, comments: "Thelists of these names as found in the texts vary greatly.... Redhouse in hisarticle in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1880 collected fromvarious lists no less than 552 different names for Allah.

"31 Stanton,another well-known Islamicist, also comments that "these names arereckoned by the traditionalist Abu Hurairah as ninety-nine.... Takingthis list as a basis, we find that twenty-six of the ninety-nine names arenot found in the Qur'an in the form given, though they are based on pas-sages which give something near it.

"32"Their variety is explained in part

by the poetic style of the Qur ' an, which tended to the use of rhyming end-ings, derived from a much smaller number of original roots with nuancesor shades of adjectival meaning.

"33

Jeffery lists one sample of the ninety-nine names of God as found inthe book Tasbih Asma Allah al-Husna written by Muhammad al-Madani:

34

29. Badru D. Kateregga and David W. Shenk, Islam and Christianity (Grand Rapids: Ee-rdmans, 1981), 7.

30. See Zwemer, 34.31. Jeffery, 93.32. H. U. Weitbrecht Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur'an (New York: Biblo and Tannen,

1969), 33.33. Cragg, 40.34. See Jeffery, 93-98.


1. Allah, the Name that is above every name.2. al-Awwal, the First, who was before the beginning (57:3).3. al-Akhir, the Last, who will still be after all has ended (57:3).4. al-Badi, the Contriver, who contrived the whole art of creation

(2:117).5. al-Bari, the Maker, from whose hand we all come (59:24).6. al-Barr, the Beneficent, whose liberality appears in all his works

(52:28).7. al-Basir, the Observant, who sees and hears all things (57:3).8. al-Basit, the Spreader, who extends his mercy to whom he wills

(13:26).9. al-Batin, the Inner, who is immanent within all things (57:3).

10. al-Baith, the Raiser, who will raise up a witness from each commu-nity (6:89, 91).

11. al-Baqi, the Enduring, who is better and more enduring (20:73, 75).12. at-Tawwab, the Relenting, who relented toward Adam and relents

to all his descendants (2:37).13. al-Jabbar, the Mighty One, whose might and power are absolute

(59:23).14. al-Jalil, the Majestic, mighty and majestic is he.15. al-Jami, the Gatherer, who gathers all men to an appointed Day

(3:9).16. al-Hasib, the Accounter, who is sufficient as a reckoner (4:6-7).17. al-Hafiz, the Guardian, who keeps watch over everything (11:57,

60).18. al-Hagq, the Truth (20:114).19. al-Hakem, the Judge, who gives judgment among his servants

(40:48, 51).20. al-Hakim, the Wise, who is both wise and well informed (6:18).21. al-Halim, the Kindly, who is both forgiving and kindly disposed

(2:225).22. al-Hamid, the Praiseworthy, to whom all praise is due (2:267, 270).23. al-Hayy, the Living, who is the source of all life (20:111).24. al-Khabir, the Well-Informed, who is both wise and well informed

(6:18).25. al-Khafid, the Humbler, who humbles some while he exalts others

(cf. 56:3).26. al-Khaliq, the Creator, who has created all things that are (13:16-

17).27. Dhul-Jalal wal-Ikram, Lord of Majesty and Honor (55:27).28. ar-Rauf the Gentle, who is compassionate toward his people

(2:143).


29. ar-Rahman, the Merciful, the most merciful of those who showmercy (1:3; 12:64).

30. ar-Rahim, the Compassionate, who is gentle and full of compas-sion (1:3; 2:143).

31. ar-Razzaq, the Provider, who provides but asks no provision(51:57-58).

32. ar-Rashid, the Guide, who leads believers in the right-minded way(11:87, 89).

33. ar-Rafi, the Exalter, who exalts some while he humbles others(6:83).

34. ar-Raqib, the Watcher, who keeps watch over his creation (5:117).35. as-Salam, the Peace-Maker, whose name is Peace (59:23).36. as-Sarni, the Hearer, who sees and hears all things (17:1).37. ash-Shakur, the Grateful, who graciously accepts the service of his

people (64:17).38. ash-Shahid, the Witness, who is witness to all things (5:117).39. as-Sabur, the Forebearing, who has great patience with his people.40. as-Samad, the Eternal, who begets not and is not begotten (112:2).41. ad-Darr, the Afflicter, who sends affliction as well as blessing

(48:11).42. az-Zahir, the Outer, who is without as well as within (47:3).43. al-Adl, the Just, whose word is perfect in veracity and justice

(6:115).44. al-Aziz, the Sublime, mighty in his sublime sovereignty (59:23).45. al-Azim, the Mighty, he who above all is high and mighty (2:255-

56).46. al-Afuw, the Pardoner, ever ready to forgive his servants (4:99-

100).47. al-Alim, the Knowing One, who is well aware of everything (2:29).48. al-Ali, the High One, he who is high and mighty (2:255-56).49. al-Ghafur, the Forgiving, who is both forgiving and well disposed

(2:235).50. al-Ghaffar, the Pardoning, ever ready to pardon and forgive

(71:10).51. al-Ghani, the Rich, since it is he who possesses all things (2:267,

270).52. al-Fattah, the Opener, who clears and opens up the Way (34:26).53. al-Qabid, the Seizer, who both holds tight and is open-handed

(2:245-46).54. al-Qadir, the Able, who has the power to do what he pleases

(17:99, 101).55. al-Quddus, the Most Holy One, to Whom all in heaven and on

earth ascribe holiness (62:1).


56. al-Qahhar, the All-Victorious, who overcomes all (13:16-17).57. al-Qawi, the Strong, sublime in his strength and his power (13:19).58. al-Qayyum, the Self-Subsistent, eternally existing in and for him-

self alone (3:2).59. al-Kabir, the Great One, who is both high and great (22:62).60. al-Karim, the Munificent, who is not only rich but generous

(27:40).61. al-Latif the Gracious, whose grace extends to all his servants

(42:19).62. al-Mutaakhkhir, the Defender, who when he wills defers punish-

ment (14:42-43).63. al-Mumin, the Faithful, who grants security to all (59:23).64. al-Mutaali, the Self-Exalted, who has set himself high above all

(13:9-10).65. al-Mutakabbir, the Proud, whose pride is in his works (59:23).66. al-Matin, the Firm, firm in his possession of strength (51:58).67. al-Mubdi, the Originator, who both originates and restores

(85:13).68. al-Mujib, the Answerer, who responds when his servants call

(11:61, 64).69. al-Majid, the Glorious, praiseworthy and glorious is he (11:73, 76).70. al-Muhsi, the Computer, who has counted and numbered all

things (19:94).71. al-Muhyi, the Quickener, who quickens and brings to life the dead

(30:50).72. al-Mudhill, the Abaser, who raises to honor or abases whom he

will (3:26).73. al-Muzil, the Separator, who will separate men from the false gods

they vainly worship (10:28-29).74. al-Musawwir, the Fashioner, who fashions his creatures how he

pleases (59:24).75. al-Muid, the Restorer, who both originates and restores (85:13).76. al-Muizz, the Honorer, who honors or abases whom he will (3:26).77. al-Muti, the Giver, from whose hand comes all good things (20:50,

52).78. al-Mughni, the Enricher, who enriches men from his bounty

(9:74-75).79. al-Mugit, the Well-Furnished, provided with power over all things

(4:85, 87).80. al-Muqtadir, he who prevails, having evil men in his powerful grip

(54:42).81.al-Muqaddim, the Bringer-Forward, who sends his promises on

ahead (50:28).


82. al-Muqsit, the Observer of Justice, who will set up the balanceswith justice (21:47-48).

83. al-Malik, the King, who is king of kings (59:23).

84. Malik al-Mulk, Possessor of the Kingdom, who grants sovereigntyto whom he will (3:26).

85. al-Mumit, he who causes to die, just as he causes to live (15:23).

86. al-Muntaqim, the Avenger, who wreaks vengeance on sinners andsuccors the believers (30:47).

87. al-Muhaimin, the Preserver, whose watchful care is over all(59:23).

88. an-Nasir, the Helper, and sufficient as a helper is he (4:45, 47).

89. an-Nur, the Light, illuminating both earth and heaven (24:35).

90. al-Hadi, the Guide, who leads believers in the straight path(22:54).

91. al-Wahed, the One, unique in his Divine sovereignty (13:16-17).

92. al-Wahid, the Unique, who alone has created (74:11).

93. al-Wadud, the Loving, compassionate and loving to his servants(11:90, 92).

94. al-Warith, the Inheritor, unto whom all things will return (19:40-

41).

95. al-Wasi, the Wide-Reaching, whose bounty reaches all (2:268,

271).

96. al-Wakil, the Administrator, who has charge of everything (6:102).

97. al-Wally, the Patron, and a sufficient patron is he (4:45, 47).

98. al-Wali, the Safeguard, other than whom men have no sure guard(13:11-12).

99. al-Wahhab, the Liberal Giver, who gives freely of his bounty (3:8).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE NAMES

In considering these names, one Muslim writer boasts that "theUniqueness of God is repeatedly affirmed in the Qur ' an together with allthe attributes of the true, perfect and sublime Creator, hence the asmaAllah alhosna (the beautiful names of God). No similar attributes, innumber or in meaning, are to be found in other sacred or non-sacredbooks. " In fact, "Muslim theologians have divided the divine attributes inmany ways: attributes of Majesty (djalal), Generosity (ikram) and Beauty(djamal), or: those of the essence (al-dhat), and those of actions (af'al),or: absolute and relative attributes."35 Also "Some Muslim teachersdivide these attributes into the natural sections of Power, Wisdom, andGoodness; others, more commonly, into Names of Terror (asma'u'l jala-

35. Abou Ridah, 46.


liyah), and names of Glory (asma'u'l jamaliyah), of which the former arethe more numerous.

"36

It is important to note that "the actions appropriate to these names,most of which are participial or adjectival forms, are frequently noted inthe events and situations of the Quranic story.... The Names are far,then, from being mere attributes to be listed in a theology: they are awe-some realities of daily life. For God is Al-Haqq—'the Real,' 'the Verita-ble."' 37 He is the Supreme Reality, the ground of all existence, whosenearness, judgment, and will are the great facts of human life.

The relative frequency with which the different names of God occur isa matter of deep interest. Their corresponding verbs—which have to dowith strength, majesty, and greatness—are very prominent. Cragg ob-serves that these names "are to be understood finally as characteristics ofthe Divine will rather than laws of I Ns nature. Action, that is, arising fromsuch descriptives may be expected, but not as a matter of necessity."38

What gives unity to all God ' s actions is that he wills them all. As willer hemay be recognized by the descriptions given him, but he does not essen-tially conform to any. The action of his will may be identified from itseffects, but his will itself is inscrutable. From this it may be concludedthat God is not necessarily loving, holy, and righteous in every situation.This explains the antithesis in certain names. There would be no antith-esis if either element within it were essential to God's nature. The antith-esis resides in the realm of the will, in that God wills both—hence, thetension remains.

For the Muslim, the seemingly contradictory actions of God are notproblematic. The divine will is an ultimate beyond which neither reasonnor revelation can go. "So God is the One Who leads astray, as well as theOne Who guides. He is the One Who brings damage, as also does Satan.He is described also by terms like the Bringer-down, the Compeller, orTyrant, the Haughty—all of which, when used of men, have an evil sense.In the Unity of the single will, however, these descriptions co-exist withthose that relate to mercy, compassion, and glory." 39

ALLAH 'S RELATIONSHIP TO HIS CREATION

In regard to the Islamic view of God's relationship to the world, thereis one constant emphasis in the Qur'an: God has transcendence, abso-lute uniqueness, and lordship. However, as Fazlur Rahman points out,

36. Stanton, 33-34.37. Cragg, 41-42.38. Ibid., 42.39. Ibid., 42-43.


the verses of the Qur'an also "equally underline His infinite mercy... .God 's lordship is expressed through His creation; His sustenance andprovision of that creation, particularly and centrally of man; and finally,through re-creation in new forms. "40

God's creation of nature and man, and of nature for man, is his mostprimordial mercy. His power, creation, and mercy are, therefore, notonly completely coextensive but fully interpenetrating and fully iden-tical: "He hath inscribed For Himself [the rule of] Mercy" (6:12); " My

mercy extendeth To all things" (7:156). His very infinitude implies nota one-sided transcendence, but equally, his being "with" his creation.He is nearer to man than is man's jugular vein (50:16). Whenever a per-son lapses morally and then sincerely regrets it and "seeks God's par-don, " God quickly returns to him. Indeed, among his often-mentionedattributes besides the "Merciful" and the "Compassionate" are the "Re-turner " (as the opposite of "forsaker" : 2:37, 54, 160, 187; 5:39, 71; 9:117-

18; 20:122; etc.), and the "Forgiver" (40:3; 2:173, 182, 192, 199, 218, 225-

26, 235; and about 116 other occurrences), which are almost invariablyfollowed by "Compassionate." For those who genuinely repent, Godtransforms their very lapses into goodness (25:70).41

Another prominent European Islamicist, Goldziher (d. 1921), com-ments, "In this God's absolute omnipotence, unlimited power to rewardand punish, and severity toward obdurate malefactores join the attributeof compassion and clemency (halim). God is indulgent with sinners andforgiving to the repentant. 'He has made compassion (al-rahma) an invi-olable law for Himself (6:54)." The following tradition seems to be a kindof commentary on this Qur'an verse: "When God had completed cre-ation, He wrote in the book that is kept by His side on the heavenlythrone: 'My compassion overcomes my wrath." "Although He reacheswith His punishment whom He will, His mercy encompasses all things"(7:156). Nor is love missing from the attributes of God in the Qur'an, assome suppose. Allah is wadud, "loving." "If you love God, follow me, andGod will love you and forgive your sins." However, "God does not love theunbelievers " (3:32).

42

Another important question is, "How does Islamic theology under-stand God's personal relationship to man?" In the language of the Qur'anthis relationship is described in terms of master (rabb) and slave (abd).God is the Sovereign Monarch who requires man to submit to him as anobedient slave. And even though God is said to be closer to man than

40. Rahman, 6.41. Ibid.42. Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, trans. Andras and Ruth

Hamori (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 24.


man's own jugular vein, the theme of an intimate relationship betweenGod and man is not further developed either in the Qur'an or in orthodoxIslamic theology (Islamic Sufism is an exception to this rule, as we shallsee later). In an interesting comment, one Muslim author writes: "Be-yond their speculations concerning God, the necessity of his existence,and his properties, Muslim theologians and philosophers have appar-ently felt no need to question the possibility and reality of a human expe-rience of God." As a matter of fact, "it is even difficult to find an appropri-ate Arabic or Persian expression for 'experience of God' without runningthe risk of encroaching upon the absolute transcendence of the God ofIslam, of anthropomorphizing him."

43

This overpowering picture of God in the Qur 'an has created its owntension in Islamic theology regarding God's absolute sovereignty andman's free will. "Orthodox Islam teaches the absolute predestination ofboth good and evil, that all our thoughts, words and deeds, whether goodor evil, were foreseen, foreordained, determined and decreed from alleternity, and that everything that happens takes place according to whathas been written for it. There was great discussion among the early Mus-li m theologians as to free will and predestination, but the free-will parties(al-qadariyya) were ultimately defeated."

44

Consider these verses: "Say, Nothing will ever befall us save what Allahhas written for us. He is our Patron, so let the believers put their trust inAllah" (9:51). "He whom Allah guides is he who is rightly guided, butwhom He leads astray, those are the losers. Indeed, We have assuredlycreated for Gehenna many of both jinn and men. They have hearts withwhich they do not comprehend, they have eyes with which they do notsee, they have ears with which they do not hear. Such are like cattle; nay,they are even further astray. Such are the heedless ones" (7:178-79). "Ver-ily the sentence comes true on most of them, so they will not believe. We,indeed, have set shackles on their necks which reach to the chins so thatthey perforce hold up [their heads]. And We have set a barrier in front ofthem, and a barrier behind them, and We have covered them over so thatthey do not see. Thus it is alike to them whether thou warn them or dostnot warn them; they will not believe" (36:7-10). "Had we so willed Weshould have brought every soul its guidance, but true is that saying ofMine: 'I shall assuredly fill up Gehenna with jinn and men together"(32:13).

45

43. Annemarie Schimmel and Abdoldjavad Falaturi, We Believe In One God (New York:Seabury Press, 1979), 85.

44. See Jeffery, 147-48.45. We are here using Jeffery's more literal translation of the Qur'an.


In addition to these verses we can find an abundance of Muhammad'ssayings and teachings in the hadith (Islamic tradition), that portray asimilar view of God, as illustrated by the following:

While we were sitting in company with the Apostle of Allah upon whom beAllah's blessing and peace—and a group of his Companions, Abu Bakr andUmar entered through one of the gates of the mosque. With them was quitea large body of people disputing with loud voices, the one contradicting theother, till they came to the Apostle of Allah.... Said he: "What is it you aredisputing about that causes you to raise your voices so and make such aclamor?" "It is about the decree," they answered. "Abu Bakr asserts thatAllah decrees good but does not decree evil, but Umar says that He decreesboth alike."

Muhammad replied:

"The decree necessarily determines all that is good and all that is sweet andall that is bitter, and that is my decision between you." Then he slappedAbu Bakr on the shoulder, and said: "0 Abu Bakr, if Allah Most High had notwilled that there he disobedience, He would not have created the Devil."Abu Bakr replied: "I seek pardon from Allah. I slipped and stumbled, 0Apostle of Allah, but never again will I fall into error about this matter."46

In the Sahih of al-Muslim (d. A.D. 875), one of the most respected Mus-lim books on the traditions of Muhammad, we read:

It may be that one of you will be performing the works of the people of Par-adise, so that between him and Paradise there is the distance of only anarm's length, but then what is written (i.e., decreed) for him overtakes him,and he begins to perform the works of the people of Hell, into which he willgo. Or maybe one of you will be performing the works of the people of Hell,so that between him and Hell there is the distance of only an arm's length,but then what is written for him will overtake him, and he will begin to per-form the works of the people of Paradise, into which he will go. 47

This attitude of God's absolute control over every aspect of his cre-ation has obviously had a profound impact on Islamic theology and cul-ture. One of the most respected Muslim theologians of all time, Al-Ghazali, writes:

He willeth also the unbelief of the unbeliever and the irreligion of thewicked and, without that will, there would neither be unbelief nor irreli-

46. See Jeffery, 149-50.47. Ibid., 150.


gion. All we do we do by His will: what He willeth not does not come to pass.If one should ask why God does not will that men should believe, weanswer, "We have no right to enquire about what God wills or does. He isperfectly free to will and to do what He pleases." In creating unbelievers, inwilling that they should remain in that state; . . . in willing, in short, all thatis evil, God has wise ends in view which it is not necessary that we shouldknow."

In another Muslim theologian we read, "Not only can He (God) doanything, He actually is the only One Who does anything. When a manwrites, it is Allah who has created in his mind the will to write. Allah at thesame time gives power to write, then brings about the motion of the handand the pen and the appearance upon paper. All other things are passive,Allah alone is active. "49

One Islamic creedal statement reads, "And God Most High is the Cre-ator of all actions of His creatures whether of unbelief or belief, of obedi-ence or of rebellion: all of them are by the Will of God and His sentenceand His conclusion and His decreeing."50 Another confession states that"God's one possible quality is His power to create good or evil at any timeHe wishes, i.e. His decree.... Both good things and evil things are theresult of God's decree. It is the duty of every Muslim to believe this... .When God rewards the pious, that is pure kindness and when He pun-ishes the sinners, that is pure justice, since the piety of humans is not use-ful for God, nor does the sinner do Him any harm. It is He who causesharm and good. Rather the good works of some and the evil of others aresigns that God wishes to punish some and to reward others." Thus, "ifGod wishes to draw someone close to Himself, then He will give him thegrace which will make that person do good works. If He wishes to rejectsomeone and put that person to shame, then He will create sin in him.God creates all things, good and evil. God creates people as well as theiractions: He created you as well as what you do (Qur 'an 37:94).

"51

SUMMARYWe have touched on some of the most basic aspects of the Islamic view

of God. God is absolutely one and in sovereign control of all things. Hehas no equals or partners. He possesses many names (traditionally

48. Abdiyah Akbar Abdul–Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim ( Minneapolis: Beth-any Fellowship Inc., 1980), 152, taken from Hughe's Dictionary, 147.

49. Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims (Bellville: SIM International Life Challenge,1987), 21.

50. Taken from the Al-Nasafi's creed as cited by Cragg, 60-61.51. Andrew Rippin and Jan Knappert, Islam ( Manchester: University Press, 1986), 133.


ninety-nine) but none really describes his ineffable essence. Rather, theyspeak of "the sovereign free will of God." God is self-existent and totallyindependent from and transcendent over the whole universe. One of themost repeated moral descriptions of God is that he is merciful. Of course,it should be pointed out that such a vast topic, with all its interrelationswith other points of Muslim theology, can certainly not be exhaustivelytreated in one short chapter. Having surveyed Islamic teachings on thecharacter of God and his relationship to the world, we turn now to theMuslim conception of God and his activities in history.

2THE ISLAMIC VIEW

OF CREATION AND MAN

One of the most prominent aspects of the Islamic view of God is theacknowledgment of him as the Creator. All that exists in the universe iscreated by God to declare his Oneness and glory. One Islamic scholarwrites, "But what is the meaning of creation? The Koran answers: Every-thing is created to worship God and to serve Him in veneration. Adora-tion, service of God in the true sense of the word, is the meaning of cre-ation and thus of history." 1

THE CREATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTHThe rich natural theology of the Qur'an affirms, "The seven heavens

and the earth, And all beings therein, Declare His glory: There is not athing But celebrates His praise" (17:44). "Verily your Lord is God, Whocreated the heavens And the earth in six Days, And is firmly establishedOn the Throne (of authority), Regulating and governing all things" (10:3).Further, "Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placedtherein a Lamp And a Moon giving light; And it is He Who made TheNight and the Day To follow each other" (25:61). "He has created man:He has taught him speech (And Intelligence). The sun and the moon Fol-low courses (exactly) computed; And the herbs and the trees—Both(alike) bow in adoration. And the Firmament has He Raised high" (55:3-7). "It is He who hath created for you all things that are on earth; more-over His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and per-

1. Schimmel and Falaturi, 155.

34

The Islamic View of Creation and Man 35

fection to the seven firmaments; and of all things Ile hath perfect knowl-edge " (2:29).

According to the Qur'an, creation includes inanimate nature; the plantand animal kingdoms; spiritual beings such as angels and jinn; andfinally human beings, who are the climax of God's creative activity.

Concerning the Islamic concept of universe and nature in general, theEncyclopaedia Britannica summarizes it well:

In order to prove the unity of God, the Qur'an lays frequent stress on thedesign and order in the universe. There are no gaps or dislocations innature. Order is explained by the fact that every created thing is endowedwith a definite and defined nature whereby it falls into a pattern. Thisnature, though it allows every created thing to function in a whole, sets lim-its.... The universe is viewed, therefore, as autonomous, in the sense thateverything has its own inherent laws of behaviour, but not as autocratic,because the patterns of behaviour have been endowed by God and arestrictly limited. 2

As one Muslim author writes, "everything in the world, or every phe-nomenon other than man is administered by God-made Laws. Thismakes the entire physical world necessarily obedient to God and submis-sive to His Laws, which, in turn, means that it is in a state of Islam [sub-mission], or it is Muslim." Thus, "the physical world has no choice of itsown. It has no voluntary course to follow on its own initiative but obeysthe Law of the Creator, the Law of Islam or submission." 3

Regarding God's creation of the natural order, the Qur'an teaches that"it is God who has Created the heavens And the earth, and all Betweenthem, in six Days" (32:4). "We created the heavens And the earth and allBetween them in Six Days, Nor did any sense Of weariness touch Us"(50:38). However, elsewhere the Qur 'an declares that "He completedthem As seven firmaments In two Days, and He Assigned to each heavenIts duty and command " (41:12). Again, "Say: Is it that ye Deny him Whocreated The earth in two Days? " (41:9).

One Muslim writer summarizes the Qur'anic witness on creation inthe following way:

First, there were six periods for the creation in general. Second, there wasan interlocking of the stages in the creation of the heavens and the earth.Third, the universe was initially a unique mass all in one block, which Godby His power and will split up. Fourth, there is a plurality of heavens and

2. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., 6-7.3. Hammudah Abdalati, Islam in Focus (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications,

1975), 9.


earth, seven heavens being emphasized. Fifth, there is an intermediaryworld of planets and heavenly bodies between the heavens and the earth.Sixth, God alone is the Creator of nature and the universe, and neither ofthe two can be God or worshipped as such, for God is altogether transcen-dent over creation. Seventh, and finally, God created everything in anorderly and understandablemanner.4

Because of the scarcity of details concerning the process of creation,later Muslim commentators added many legends to the story of cre-ation to fill in the gaps in the Qur'anic passages. 5 Some modern Muslimscholars use these gaps to account for some sort of theistic evolutionaryprocess.

THE CREATION OF ANGELS

Belief in angels plays an important part in the Islamic faith. TheQur'an and later Islamic theology have much to say about their existenceand functions. In fact, belief in angels is one of the five main articles ofthe faith.

Ajijola points out that, "To be a Muslim, it is necessary to believe notonly in God, in the life Hereafter, in the prophets and in the Books of God,but also in the angels of God."6 This statement is based on the Qur'anicexhortation, "It is not righteousness That you turn your faces TowardsEast or West; But it is righteousness—To believe in God And the Last Day,And the Angels And the Book, And the Messengers" (2:177). According toa well-established tradition from Muhammad, "Belief in Angels is anessential part of faith. The Prophet was sitting once in the company ofsome people when Gabriel came to him and said, 'What is faith?' TheProphet replied, 'Faith is believing in God and His Angels. "'7

In his theological work Al-Mufaredat, one Islamic theologian, ImamRaghib Isfahani, writes:

The angels are formed of light. They neither err nor commit sin. They areconstituted so. Their sole occupation is to sing the hymns of Allah. They arefree from baser appetites. Wrong beliefs about gods and goddesses havestemmed from the distorted notion of God's unshared authority. Peoplebelieved that God had placed His domains under the authority of variousangels who run the administration of their respective provinces under Hiscommand. The Quran has repeatedly contradicted this theory. It tells thatthe angels are not God's daughters nor are they benefactors in their own

4. Kateregga and Shenk, 10.5. See Rippin and Knappert, Islam, 59-63.6. Ajijola, 71.7. Mahmud, 64.


right. They are the beings, who flinch not (from executing) the commandsthey receive from God. But do (precisely) what they are commanded to do. 8

In reference to the activities and duties of angels, the great Britishscholar on Islam, H. A. R. Gibb, writes:

In the imagery of the Koran the angels are represented generally as God'smessengers. They are ... His creatures and servants and worship Him con-tinually; they bear up His Throne, descend with His Decrees on the Nightof Power, record men's actions, receive their souls when they die, and wit-ness for or against them at the Last Judgment, and guard the gates of Hell.At the battle of Badr they assisted the Muslims against the vastly superiorforces of the Meccans. 9

Ajijola explains:

According to these hadith (traditional sayings of Muhammad): some angelsquestion the dead in their graves. They are called Munkir and Nakir. Someangels just keep roaming about the world. They attend places where peoplepray to Allah, where religious lectures are being given or the Holy Qur'an isread.... These angels testify to Allah, the presence of those who attendsuch meetings.... The duties of the angels working in the world keepchanging every morning and evening. The angels of night duty go backwhen morning prayers are said. The angels on day duty take over. These goback at the time of the Asr (evening) prayers and those having night dutyreturn once again. 10

In addition to the numberless multitudes of angelic beings, Muslimsbelieve in four archangels: Gabriel (the angel of revelation, also recog-nized by many Muslims as the Holy Spirit, who is believed to have dic-tated the Qur'an word by word to the prophet Muhammad), Michael (theangel of providence, and also the guardian of the Jews), Israfil (the sum-moner to resurrection), and lzra ' il (the angel of death). Among thesearchangels, Gabriel holds the most prominent place, due to his functionas the bearer of divine revelation. "Say: Whoever is an enemy To Gab-riel—for he brings down The [revelation] to thy heart.... Whoever is anenemy to God And His angels and apostles, To Gabriel and Michael—Lo!God is an enemy to those Who reject Faith" (2:97—98).

8. Kausar Niazi, Creation of Man (Karachi: Ferozoono, Ltd., 1975), 12.9. H. A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 56-57.10. See Ajijola, 72.

38 11w Basic Doctrines of OrthodoxIslam

JINNIn addition to angels God created other spiritual beings called jinn.

The Qur'an declares, "We created man from sounding clay, From mudmoulded into shape; and the Jinn race, We had Created before, from thefire Of a scorching wind" (15:26-27). Again we read, "I have only createdJinn and men, that They may serve Me " (51:56).

There has been much speculation concerning the identity and natureof jinn, but it is commonly believed that they are powerful, intelligentcreatures who possess freedom of choice. Therefore, some are good andsome are evil (cf. 72:11). They seem to be halfway between men andangels. According to Fazlur Rahman, the jinn "despite their fiery natureand much greater physical powers ... are not fundamentally differentfrom men, except for their greater proneness to evil andstupidity."tOccasionally they materialize in different forms and can be seen byhuman eyes, but most often they are invisible to the average individual.

There are several Qur ' anic passages that describe their activities—such as jinn listening to the recitation of the Qur'an and being convertedto Islam or being obedient servants to King Solomon (see 46:29ff.; 72:1-2). And in later Islamic theology and culture they play an even moreprominent role. One contemporary Muslim author writes:

Among the earlier scholars ... nobody doubted their existence. But thelater scholars swept by a wave of rationalism totally rejected the creation ofjinn. Our submission is: How can we assume that the jinn cannot be seenwhen sufficient testimony is available to the fact that they have been seenby many. . . . In his famous work "An-Nabuwwat," the Imam (Ibn Taimyya )writes that whosoever attains mastery over the jinn, is flown on their backto distant places. It was a common phenomenon, which he had himselfwitnessed. 1 le says that many jinn who had succeeded in insinuatingthemselves into his disciples' company were given a severe beating by him.They took to their heels never to return. 12

Several classical Muslim theologians have written on topics such asmarriage relationships between human beings and jinn, the future des-tiny of jinn, whether prayer led by jinn is permissible, and cases of jinn-possessions. Formulas that protect individuals from the mischief of thejinn are offered by some. 13

Unlike the majority of Muslim thinkers, the more Westernized Muslimtheologian, Rahman, downplays the role of jinn in Qur'anic theology:

11. Rahman, 122.12. See Niazi, 26.13. Ibid., 25-28.


Could the jinn represent some earlier stage in the course of evolution? Bethat as it may, mention of the jinn ceases in the Madman period of theQur'an, which continues to call itself "guidance for man" and, in fact, neveraddresses the jinn primarily, or even directly. (As we have said, even in thetwo passages where the jinn listened to the Qur'an, the Prophet himself didnot experience them but the Qur'an reported to him about it.)

14

SATAN

Concerning the Qur'anic names for Satan, Stanton writes, "The devilis called in the Qur'an indifferently by the Hebrew derivative Shaitan(Shatan) or the Greek Iblis (diabolos). The name Shaitan is generallyused with the epithet rajim = stoned or accursed, sometimes marid orrebellious."

15

There is a good deal of Islamic controversy regarding the identity ofSatan. Some Qur'anic evidence seems to point to Satan as an angelicbeing. However, we are also told in the Qur'an that angels cannot disobeyGod and yet Satan obviously did. Therefore, many Muslim theologianshave held the opinion that Satan belonged to the species of jinn.

Kateregga notes that "Muslim theology is of the view that Iblis (Satan)was not an angel but ajinn (spirit) and that he was a leader of a group ofjinn who disobeyed Allah. "16 Yusuf Ali, the translator of the popular TheHoly Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, commenting on 2:34, afteracknowledging the possibility that Satan could be a fallen angel, goes onto say, "But the theory of fallen angels is not usually accepted in Muslimtheology. In 18:50, Iblis is spoken of as a Jinn." 17

Even though Satan was created before man, his rebellion against Godaccording to the Qur'an was almost simultaneous with the creation ofman. In 38:71—77 we read:

Behold, thy Lord said To the angels: "I am About to create man From clay:When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed Into him ofMy spirit, Fall ye down in obeisance Unto him." So the angels prostratedthemselves, All of them together: Not so Iblis: he Was haughty, and becameOne of those who reject Faith. (God) said: "0 Iblis! What prevents thee fromProstrating thyself to one Whom I have created With My hands? Art thouhaughty? Or art thou one Of the high (and mighty) ones?" (Iblis) said: "I ambetter Than he: Thou createdst Me from fire, and him Thou createdest fromclay." (God) said: "Then get thee Out from here: for thou Art rejected,accursed. Any My curse shall be On thee till the Day Of Judgment.

14. See Rahman, 123. See also Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Translation andCommentary (Damascus: (Ouloom Al Qur'an, 1934), n. 929.

15. Stanton, 39.16. See Kateregga and Shenk, 11.17. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an, 1:25.


Commenting on this scenario, Kateregga concludes: "It is our sincerebelief as Muslims that Satan (Iblis) has been at the source and center ofevil even before the creation of Adam, the first human being in history."So "Satan is the power and source of evil. Satan was the first creature todisobey and lead a rebellion against God. "18

Since Satan's activities are particularly connected to his role as thechief deceiver of humankind (35:5; 4:120), and leading humankind astrayfrom the straight path of God's will, it is necessary now to focus on theMuslim doctrine of human beings, who are the climax of God's creation.

THE CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS

The creation of the human race is a fundamental Islamic belief. Theorigin and nature of human beings on earth are key to understandingtheir role in God's plan. The Qur'an affirms that Adam was the firsthuman being whom God created. The first man is said to have been cre-ated in heaven and was expelled to the earth after his "fall." Some con-temporary Muslim writers are hesitant to admit the historicity of Adam.Even the conservative writer, Ajijola, shys away from a dogmatic stand bysuggesting that "[Adam] may probably be the first man and the progeni-tor of the human race. "19 However, most orthodox Muslims still hold tothe traditional view that Adam was the first human being. 20

God announces his plan of man's creation in this way: "Behold, thyLord said to the angels: 'I will create A viceregent on earth.' They said: 'WiltThou place therein one who will make Mischief therein and shed blood?—Whilst we do celebrate Thy praises And glorify Thy holy (name)?' He said:'I know what ye know not"' (2:30).

God created Adam from clay. "We created man from sounding clay,From mud moulded into shape" (15:26) and breathed into him his spirit.In 32:9 we read, "But He fashioned him In due proportion, and breathedInto him something of His spirit. And He gave You (the faculties of) hear-ing And sight and feeling."

Nowhere in the Qur'an are we told about the time and process of Eve'screation as the female companion for Adam. To fill in this gap, the mostrespected Muslim traditionalists, like Bukhari, cite the saying of theprophet that "Woman has been created from man's rib." 21 However,many students of the Qur'an place Eve's creation after the angelic pros-tration to Adam, since immediately after the above verses we read in

18. Kateregga and Shenk, 20.19. Ajijola, 122, emphasis ours.20. See Niazi, 6.21. Ibid., 43.


2:35a, "We said, 0 Adam! dwell thou And thy wife in the Garden And eatof the bountiful things therein."

At the beginning, Adam and Eve were pure and sinless and enjoyedunbroken communion with their Creator. As Kateregga notes:

At this time our first parents, Adam and Hauwa (Eve), were quite innocentin spiritual and material affairs. TThey had been placed in a spiritual Gardenof innocence and bliss which was not on the earth but in the heavens. Theydid not know evil. However, as God's khalifa [viceregent or representative],they had been endowed, through the spirit of God, with the faculties ofknowledge, will, and choice. 22

HUMAN NATURE

Kateregga warns us that "some modern Muslim scholars believe thatthe Qur'anic evidence suggests that man has a certain Godlikeness. Butthe orthodox belief is that man has no Godlikeness." Thus, "God breath-ing into man His (God's) spirit is believed by some scholars to be the fac-ulty of God—like knowledge and will, which if rightly used gives mansuperiority over all creation. However, this is not to make God into man,for God is absolutely transcendent over all creation."23 It is this view thatleads Kateregga to caution us even more about the Qur'anic expressionthat God breathed his spirit into man. He notes that:

The Christian witness, that man is created in the "image and likeness ofGod," is not the same as the Muslim witness. Although God breathed intoman His spirit ... for Islam the only Divine quality that was entrusted toman as a result of God's breath was the faculty of knowledge, will, andpower of action. If man uses these Divine qualities rightly in understandingGod and following His law strictly, then he has nothing to fear in thepresent or the future, and no sorrow for the past.

24

After the initial stage of Adam's creation, we encounter the peculiarQur'anic account of the contest between Adam and the angels, and God'scommand to the angels to bow down and prostrate themselves beforeAdam:

And He taught Adam the nature Of all things; then He placed them Beforethe angels, and said, "Tell Me The nature of these if ye are right." They said,"Glory to Thee: of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Nast taughtus: in truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom." He said:"0 Adam! tell them Their natures." When he had told them, God said: "Did

22. Kateregga and Shenk, 21.23. Ibid., 15.24. Ibid., 100-101.


I not tell you That I know the secrets of heaven And earth, and I know whatye reveal And what ye conceal?" And behold, We said to the angels: "Bowdown to Adam" and they bowed down: Not so Iblis: he refused and washaughty: He was of those who reject Faith (2:31-34).

This divine command to the angels to prostrate themselves to Adamhas occasioned much discussion among Muslim commentators, since inIslam such a worshipful gesture is due only to God. To avoid such animplication Niazi writes,

Great commentators like Abdullah lbn Abbas and Immam Razi regardSajda (prostrating) as synonymous with humility, submission . . . andmeekness.... What God commanded the angels to do was not to throwthemselves in prostration as we do in prayer. They were ordered only tobow before Adam. The physical touching of the ground with forehead andhands was not meant. Some scholars think that it was a physical prostra-tion, no doubt, but was of a different character. It was differential prostra-tion, which was permissible under earlier Shariahs ("dispensations")... .Some commentators hold that though the angels did bow before Adam,their obeisance in actuality was directed to an higher object. It was done toGod Almighty Himself; from whom the command came: Adam only servedas Qibla, precisely as the Kaaba does. Prayer is not addressed to that stonystructure: it is addressed to the Master of the House. 25

Niazi adds quickly, "Whichever argument be the weightiest of thethree, there should be no hesitation in accepting that God Almightydirected the angels to co-operate with (rather follow) man in the dis-charge of his duties as the viceroy of God." 26 Whatever their differences,it is sufficient to say that most orthodox Muslims view this account asGod's declaration of man's superiority to angels in regard to capacity forlearning and growth.

27

HUMAN SIN

Human beings were created innocent and free but chose to sin againstGod. Sin, however, is not an irradicable part of human nature. Muslimsbelieve that God forbade Adam and Eve to approach and partake of a par-ticular (though nameless) tree in the Garden. In continuation of the com-mand to enter the Garden, 2:35b says, "but approach not this tree, Or yeturn into harm and transgression." Satan misled Adam and Eve into dis-obeying their Lord and tasting of the forbidden tree. A conversation had

25. Niazi, 21-23.26. Ibid.27. See Kateregga and Shenk, 11.


already taken place between God and Satan, after the latter refused toobey God's command to bow down to Adam (7:12-18):

(God) said: "What prevented Thee from bowing down When I commandedthee?" He said: "1 am better Than he: Thou didst create Me from fire, andhim from clay." (God) said: "Get thee down From this: it is not For thee tohe arr ogant Here: get out, for thou Art of the meanest (of creatures)." Hesaid: "Give me respite Till the day they are Raised up." (God) said: "Be thouAmong those who have respite." He said: "Because thou Hast thrown meout Of the Way, lo! I will Lie in wait for them On Thy Straight Way: Then Iwill assault them From before them and behind them, From their right andtheir left: Nor wilt Thou find, In most of them, Gratitude (for Thy mercies)."(God) said: "Get out From this, disgraced And expelled. If any Of them fol-low thee,—Hell will I fill With you all."

Commenting on this event, Fazlur Rahman attempts to explain the sit-uation as follows:

Iblis or Satan thus appears more cunning and artful than strong, moredeceitful and contriving than forthrightly challenging, more beguiling,treacherous, and "waylaying" than giving battle. This is why he shall say onthe Day of Judgment to those who will accuse him of leading them astray,"God made you a true promise whereas I made you a false promise. I hadno power over you but only invited you [to error] and you accepted my invi-tation. Do not blame me but [only] yourselves. I cannot help you, nor canyou help me" (14:22).

Rahman adds, "His (Satan's) master-stratagem consists in 'embellish-ing' or 'causing to look attractive' the dross of the world as tinsel, or caus-ing to look burdensome or frightening that which is really fruitful andconsequential.... Satan made their [evil] deeds look attractive in theireyes " (8:48). 28

Soon after the entrance of Adam and Eve into the Garden, Satan beganhis mission of leading humankind astray. Man's first parents weredeceived by Satan and were eventually expelled from heaven (7:20-25):

Then began Satan to whisper Suggestions to them, bringing Openly beforetheir minds All their shame That was hidden from them (Before): he said:"Your Lord Only forbade you this tree, Lest ye should become angels Orsuch beings as live for ever." And he swore to them Both, that he was Theirsincere adviser. So by deceit he brought about Their fall: when they Tastedof the tree, Their shame became manifest To them, and they began To sewtogether the leaves Of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called

28. Rahman, 125.


Unto them: "Did I not Forbid you that tree, And tell you that Satan Was anavowed Enemy unto you?" They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged ourown souls: If Thou forgive us not And bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, weshall Certainly be lost." (God) said: "Get ye down, With enmity betweenyourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place And your means of liveli-hood,—For a time." He said: "Therein shall ye Live, and therein shall yeDie; but from it shall ye Be taken out (atlast)."29

Despite some general similarities to the biblical version of man's fall,there are radical differences between the Christian and the Islamicinterpretations of Adam's transgression. Whereas in Christian theologyman's disobedience is viewed as a fundamental turning point in hisrelationship to God, according to the Muslim perspective this was onlya single slip on Adam and Eve 's part that was completely forgiven aftertheir repentance. It had no further effect on the nature of man and therest of the creation. Neither does the fact that man was expelled fromParadise to earth (as a direct result of this transgression of divine com-mand) play a significant role in the Islamic anthropology or soteriology.Kateregga writes, "Many Muslims think that Adam and Hauwa werefirst kept in the Heavenly Garden for a trial of their inclinations beforethey were to be sent to earth where they had been appointed as khal-ifa."30 Niazi adds: "Adam's ejectment from the Garden has been inter-preted by small-minded people as a sort of punishment." However, "theorder `get ye down' was repeated after pardon had been granted, inorder to dispel the notion that the Fall resulted from a sinful act... .Adam was created as God's viceroy.... He had to have come down tothis world to manage it."

31

Concerning the significant gap between the Christian and Muslimunderstanding of the "fall," Kateregga writes:

The Christian witness that the rebellion by our first parents has tragicallydistorted man, and that sinfulness pervades us individually and collec-tively, is very much contrary to Islamic witness. Islam teaches that the firstphase of life on earth did not begin in sin and rebellion against Allah.Although Adam disobeyed Allah, he repented and was forgiven and evengiven guidance for mankind. Man is not born a sinner and the doctrine ofthe sinfulness of man has no basis in Islam.

32

29. It is difficult to understand why according to the Qur'an Satan should tempt man bypromising him that he would become like angels or become immortal. Man was certainlycreated higher than all the angels as the Qur'an itself affirms. And why should man havefeared death if he was pure and sinless?

30. Kateregga and Shenk, 17.31. Niazi, 67-68.32. Kateregga and Shenk, 101.


Another Muslim author, Faruqi, notes that "in the Islamic view,human beings are no more 'fallen' than they are 'saved.' Because they arenot 'fallen,' they have no need of a savior. But because they are not'saved' either, they need to do good works—and do them ethically—which alone will earn them the desired 'salvation.– Indeed, "salvation isan improper term, since, to need 'salvation,' one must be in a predica-ment beyond the hope of ever escaping from it. But men and women arenot in that predicament." So "Islam teaches that people are born inno-cent and remain so until each makes him or herself guilty by a guiltydeed. Islam does not believe in 'original sin'; and its scripture interpretsAdam's disobedience as his own personal misdeed—a misdeed for whichhe repented and which God forgave."

33

Abdalati understands the fall as a "symbolic event," contending that"it tells that the human being is imperfect and ever wanting even if hewere to live in paradise. But committing a sin or making a mistake, asAdam and Eve did, does not necessarily deaden the human heart, pre-vent spiritual reform or stop moral growth." The idea of original sin "hasno room in the teachings of Islam. Man, according to the Qur'an (30:30)and to the Prophet, is born in a natural state of purity orfitrah." Whateverbecomes of man after birth is the result of external influence and intrud-ing factors.

34

Ajijola claims that the story of man's fall is "highly allegorical." Its pur-pose is to show "that every man must carry on a struggle with his passionsuntil he acquires the mastery over them." He then suggests that Adamdisobeyed the divine commandment "through forgetfulness and notintentionally." 35 Based on the opinion of several Muslim exegetes, Niaziclaims that "it is proved that the imperative mood employed in the Quran(referring to God's command of abstaining from the tree) does not nec-essarily mean that whosoever acts against it is a sinner. It is sometimes anadvice which man is expected to follow to his own advantage. The direc-tive given to Adam falls under this category."

36He even concludes that

"Adam had committed no sin" but only made "a mistake"!37 AnotherMuslim theologian claimed that "to call Adam a sinner or a wayward isunbelief'!38

This reluctance on the part of Muslim scholars to denounce Adam'sact of disobedience as a great evil in the sight of a holy and righteous Godstands in sharp contrast to the Christian view of man's fall: that the death

33. Ismail R. Al–Faruqi, Islam (Niles, Ill.: Argus Communications, 1984), 9.34. Abdalati, 31-32.35. Ajijola, 130-31.36. Niazi, 53.37. Ibid., 66.38. Ibid., 63.


and condemnation of all human beings (except Christ) find their cause inthe rebellion of Adam against the Creator (Rom. 5:12-19). However, oncewe consider other aspects of Islamic theology, such as the Muslim under-standing of sin and prophethood, we begin to realize why Muslim theo-logians do not draw a great deal of attention to man's fall. 39

Regarding the Qur'anic references to sin, the European Islamicist,Stanton, writes:

Sin—The principal terms for this are khati'ah (Hebrew kiwi),ithm(Hebrew asham)) and dhanb . The last of these occurs thirty-eight times andrefers chiefly to ceremonial offenses. Ithm occurs twenty-nine times andlargely in the same sense. Khati'ah occurs only five times. It comes nearestto the idea of sin as a missing of the mark or standard set up by God. Theteaching of the Qur'an about sin as such is very sparse. Certain sins, suchas pride, covetousness, etc., are denounced on occasion, but the sin whichcomprehends all others is shirk= association, namely, of other deities withAllah. That isunpardonable.40

Because of the Qur'an 's attitude toward sin, many orthodox Muslimtheologians have traditionally adopted a nominalistic view of ethics 41

An act is not intrinsically right or wrong. It is only right when God specif-ically declares it to be such according to his will. Since the Qur'an itselfdoes not seem to put much emphasis on the gravity of Adam's transgres-sion, many Muslim theologians have, understandably so, been unwillingto go beyond the Qur'anic pronouncements.

Another important issue involved here is that, according to most Mus-lims, the prophets of God are either totally sinless or at least protectedfrom major sins or shortcomings (though this theological belief is notbased on any explicit statements in the Qur'an). And since in Islam Adamis recognized as the first prophet to humankind, it follows that Adammust have been spared from committing a major sin. We read in 2:38-39,"Get ye down all from here; And if, as is sure, there comes to you Guid-ance from Me, whosoever Follows My guidance, on them Shall be no fear,nor shall they grieve." Based on this verse and other traditions fromMuhammad, Niazi writes:

Adam, at a number of places in the Quran and the Traditions, has clearlybeen mentioned not only as a prophet but as an Apostle also. We haveadded the word apostle because prophecy means to be a recipient ofinspi–

39. See J. Dudley Woodberry , "Different Diagnoses of the Human Condition," in Mus-lims and Christians on the Emmaus Road ( Monrovia: MARC, 1989), 149-60.

40. Stanton, 56.41. See John Alden Williams, Islam (New York: George Braziller, 1962), 192-93.


ration only. An apostle, on the other hand is one who is the bearer of Sha-riah (Law). ... Adam, as testified by the above verse, was a recipient ofinspiration ... (also) it shows that Adam was an Apostle, who had also ashariah of his own.... Ibn Al-Kathir also has quoted the following traditionby Hazrat Abu Zar. "I asked the Messenger of Allah whether Adam was aprophet. He said: 'Yes a prophet and a messenger. God also talked to himface to face."'42

Attempting to address this tension in Islamic theology, Katereggawrites, "Adam having repented was made Allah's first messenger onearth. He was to show guidance to his children. How could God entrustsuch a high office to an evildoer?"

43

HUMAN PURPOSEGoing beyond the accounts of creation and the origin of humankind,

what does Islam teach about human beings in general? What is man?What is his purpose? And how does he achieve his highest good? TheIslamic answer is that human beings are finite, mortal creatures, whohave been honored by God to be his representatives and servants onearth. Even though human beings are not sinful and have no fallennature, they are intrinsically weak, frail, imperfect, and constantly forget-ful of God.

It should be noted that occasionally "some Muslim theologians haveheld to a doctrine of Hereditary Sin. . . . Also, there is a famous traditionthat the Prophet of Islam said, No child is born but the devil hathtouched it, except Mary and her son Jesus."'44 Further, "Other passagesrefer to humankind as sinful (or unjust—zulum—14:34/37; 33:72), fool-ish (33:72), ungrateful (14:34/37), weak (4:28/32), despairing or boastful(11:9/12-10/13), quarrel-some (16:4), and rebellious (96:6). "45 TheQur'an even declares that "if God were to punish Men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), A single living creature"(16:61). Ayatollah Khomeini even went so far as to say, "You should payattention and all of us should pay attention (to the fact] that man's calam-ity is his carnal desires, and this exists in everybody, and is rooted in thenature of man. Amen! "46 Nonetheless, the view that sin is inherited hasbeen rejected by the vast majority of Muslim scholars.

42. Niazi, 7-8.43. Kateregga and Shenk , 23.44. Michael Nazir-Ali, Frontiers in Muslim-Christian Encounter (Oxford: Regnum

Books, 1987), 165.45. For an excellent discussion on this subject, see Woodberry, 155.46. "Islamic Government Does Not Spend for Its Own Grandeur," Kayhan Internation-

al, 4 Sept. 1985, cited by Woodberry, ibid., 159.


According to Kateregga and the majority view in Islam, the Qur'anteaches that "all people are born as true Muslims, innocent, pure, andfree (30:30). There is no single act which has warped the human will."

47

This belief seems to be based on a well-known tradition from the prophetthat says, "Every infant is born according to the 'Fitra' ('on God's plan'),then his parents make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian." 48

Fazlur Rahman comments:

On the whole, despite the sad accounts of the human record in the Qur'an,its attitude is quite optimistic with regard to the sequel of human endeavor.It also advocates a healthy moral sense rather than the attitude of self-tor-ment and moral frenzy represented, for example, by the teaching of Pauland many Sufis, which require some sort of savior ex machina. Given amerciful and just God and the solidarity of character called taqwa, humanwell-being is provided for: "If you avoid the major evils that have been pro-hibited to you, We shall obliterate [the effects of) occasional and smallerlapses " (4:31).

49

As God's khalifa (trustee on earth), man has received the privilege ofbeing in authority over the rest of the creation. "We made animals subjectTo you, that ye May be grateful" (22:36). Further, "We have honoured thesons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given themfor sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them specialfavours, Above a great part Of Our Creation " (17:70 [see also 7:10]). Com-menting on the significance of man's position as khalifa, Kateregga writes:

God has honoured man, His khalifa, with the authority over His countlesscreatures. He has been commissioned to use nature for his own welfare(Qur'an 33:72). As a khalifa he is chosen to cultivate the land and enrichlife with knowledge and meaning. Nature is subject to man.... Man aloneenjoys the right to use nature for his own good in obedience to the Divinecommands. 50

However, it should be noted that this understanding of man as God'ssteward on earth is a fairly recent concept in Islamic theology. 51 As it wasmentioned in the first chapter, by far the most prominent "Qur'anic con-ception of the relation of the human race to God is dominated by two

47. Kateregga and Shenk, 17-18.48. Abdul-Haqq, 158.49. Rahman, 30.50. Kateregga and Shenk, 12.51. W. Montgomery Watt, Islam and Christianity Today (London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul, 1983), 127.


words, abd and rabb. In relation to God a human being is an abd or'slave', while God is the rabb, usually translated 'lord' but perhaps con-noting rather something more august such as 'sovereign.'"

52

Closely related to this image of man as slave and God as the absolutesovereign, is the idea of the limitedness or, according to some orthodoxschools, the nonexistence of human freedom. W. Montgomery Wattwrites:

In the Qur'an and in early Muslim thinkers no use was made of the concep-tion of human freedom. A person was regarded as somehow responsiblefor his acts (or at least some of them), but there was also a deep awarenessof the constraints upon human action. Any idea of human freedom, how-ever, would necessarily have implied a rebellion against the status of abd orslave with regard to God. Thus freedom could he in no sense an ideal to bestriven for, but only a disaster to be avoided. 53

It is outside the scope of this chapter to explore any further this tensionbetween the doctrine of divine sovereignty and human freedom inIslamic theology (see Chapter 1). The debates continue, but it is sufficientto point out that since almost the very beginning of Islam, the orthodoxposition has been that God creates human acts or creates the power inthe individual to do a particular act, while the human agents only"acquire" or "appropriate" these actions (kasb). "The conception impliedthat an individual had a sufficient degree of responsibility for an act for itto be credited or debited to his account. In this way the justice of God'sjudgment was preserved."

54

In regard to the Qur'anic view of man's purpose for existence, we canonce again refer to 51:56: "I have only created ... men that They mayserve Me." In 49:13 we read, "0 mankind! We created You from a single(pair) Of male and female, And made you into Nations and tribes, that Yemay know each other.... Verily The most honoured of you In the sight ofGod Is (he who is) the most Righteous of you." Another important versein this context is 21:16: "Not for (idle) sport did We Create the heavensand the earth And all that is between!"

It is generally agreed that according to orthodox Islam, the purpose ofman is not to know God and become more conformed to his character,but to understand his will and become more obedient to his commands.This, for example, is the view of the champion of orthodoxy,IbnTaymia.

55Of course, in Islam this is not looked on as a deficiency, since

52.Ibid ., 125.53. Ibid., 127.54. Ibid., 126.55. See Williams, 206.


the emphasis of the Qur'an is not on revealing who God is but on what hewills, as man's highest calling.

Abdalati writes:

Man alone is singled out as being endowed with intelligence and the powerof making choices. And because man possesses the qualities of intelligenceand choice he is invited to submit to the good Will of God and obey His Law.... But if he chooses disobedience he will deviate from the Right Path and... will incur the displeasure and punishment of the Law-Giver.56

An important principle that should be mentioned at this point is thefact that in Islam, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition before it, this lifeand this world are not the end but a preparation, a testing ground for thehereafter. It is in this context that it becomes significant and purposefulfor man to act good and ethically. Abdalati comments:

Life may be likened to a journey starting from a certain point and ending ata certain destination. It is a transitory stage, an introduction to the EternalLife in the Hereafter. In this journey man is a traveller and should he con-cerned with only what is of use to him in the Future Life. . . . He should doall the good he can and make himself fully prepared to move any minute toEternity.... The best use of life, therefore, is to live it according to theteachings of God and to make it a safe passage to the Future Life of Eter-nity. Because life is so important as a means to an ultimate end, Islam haslaid down a complete system of regulations and principles to show manhow to live it, what to take and what to leave, what to do and what to shun,and so on. 57

Human beings can achieve their ultimate good by obeying the regula-tions of divine commands as prescribed in the Qur'an (see Chapter 6).

It is appropriate to conclude this section with Kateregga's analysis ofhumankind's situation:

Good as man may be, he still cannot measure up to the goodness and per-fection of Allah, his Creator. History has shown that man is negligent, care-less, and forgetful. He is good, but imperfect. Being imperfect, he needsconstant reminding. That is why God sent His prophets and messengers tohelp man achieve perfection. Through the prophets, God has repeatedlyreminded man of the Law of God.... Man has to be reminded constantlyof the right path through prophets and revelation.58

56. Abdalati, 9.57. Ibid., 29.58. Kateregga and Shenk, 16-18.


SUMMARY

Creation is a fundamental teaching in Islamic monotheism. God isCreator of heaven and earth. He created not only the physical universe,but also spiritual beings such as angels Man jinn. God created humankindinnocent, but they have made choices to their own detriment. Neverthe-less, human beings are not essentially evil, but basically good. They arefinite, mortal creatures, who are honored by God to be his representa-tives and servants on earth. Even though human beings are not essen-tially sinful and have no fallen nature, they are intrinsically weak, frail,imperfect, and constantly forgetful of God. Consequently, God sendsthem prophets to call them to submit to his sovereign will.

3PROPHETS

According to Islam, prophets are needed for two basic reasons: (1)humans are frail, and (2) God cares for his creatures. Hence God sendsprophets to call people back to himself. Thus, the belief in God's sover-eign care for his wayward creation gives rise to the belief in prophets asthe bearers of his divine message. This is a natural deduction in Islamictheology. In fact, belief in the prophets and belief in their Scriptures aretwo of the five doctrinal pillars of Islam (along with belief in God, hisangels, and the last day).

In this chapter we will discuss the Muslim understanding of the roleand significance of prophets with special focus on Jesus. Since God gaveprophets inspired Scripture, we will also look at the Muslim attitudetoward various divine scriptures, including the Bible, and the people ofother Scriptures such as Jews and Christians.

THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF PROPHETS

In Islamic theology there are two particular Arabic words that areroughly equivalent to the English word "prophet." The Qur'anic termrasul signifies "one who is sent" (the Arabic rendering of the Greek apos-tolos), and the Arabic term nabi signifies "one who carries informationand proclaims news from God" (this word is identical to the Hebrewnabi, prophet). Although these terms are sometimes used interchange-ably, many Muslim theologians understand rasul to mean one who issent with a divine Scripture, while nabi is one who orally proclaims God'smessage to a possibly smaller audience and adheres to the Scripturespreviouslysent.1

1. See Kateregga and Shenk, 34; Muhammad Abdul Rauf, Islam: Creed and Worship( Wasbington, D.C.: The Islamic Center, 1974), 5.

52

Prophets 53

The fundamental emphasis in Islam regarding the identity of aprophet is on the fact that he must be a human being. Ajijola writes:

The prophet, according to the Holy Qur'an, must be a human being, andhence it does not accept the doctrine of incarnation, or God in flesh. Thereformation of man is entrusted to men to whom the Divine will is revealed,because only a man could serve as a model for men.... How could God inflesh serve as a model for frail human beings who have to meet hundreds oftemptations, whereas for God there exists no possible temptation? 2

Cragg adds a helpful insight when he notes that "it is the insistentrequirement of the concept of prophethood in Islam that it must excludeand negate the concept of Incarnation, whereas, as Christians see it,prophethood deepens and climaxes into `the Incarnate Word."' Thus,"in Islam, spokesmanship comprehends all that may be done for God inthis world." 3

Besides being a human being, there are other important characteris-tics that serve as qualifications for being a prophet. Abdalati writes, "Allthe prophets of God were men of good character and high honor... .Their honesty and truthfulness, their intelligence and integrity arebeyond doubt. They were infallible in that they did not commit sins orviolate the Law of God." 4

Muslim scholars are of the opinion that prophets are either completelysinless or at least free from all major sins or faults. Some orthodox Mus-lims claim that even the power of sinning does not exist in prophets. Forexample, Ibn Khaldun, the classical Muslim scholar (d. 1406), claims that"their characteristic mark is that before the coming of revelation to themthey were all found to be naturally good and sagacious, such men as shunblameworthy actions and all things unclean." This, he believes "is themeaning of their impeccability (isma). Thus, they seem to have aninstinctive inclination to rise above things that are blameworthy, andeven shrink from them as though such things were repugnant to theirinborn disposition."5

As to the purpose of the prophets, the Qur'an and Islamic theology areunequivocal: "To every people (was sent) An Apostle: when their ApostleComes (before them), the matter Will be judged between them With jus-tice, and they Will not be wronged" (10:47). "For We assuredly sentAmongst every People an apostle, (With the Command), 'Serve God, andeschew Evil — (16:36). "Raised high above ranks.... (He is) the Lord Of the

2. Ajijola, 233.3. Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1985), 287.4. Abdalati, 27; see also Raul', 5.5. Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, 135-36.


Throne (of authority): By His Command doth I Ie Send the spirit (of inspi-ration) To any of His servants He pleases, that it may Warn (men) of theDay Of Mutual Meeting" (40:15).

Two prominent aspects of prophethood are clearly expressed in theabove verses. First is the belief that God has raised up an individual ineach particular community to warn its people. Second is the Muslim con-viction that every prophet has proclaimed the same basic message, whichconsists of inviting the people to acknowledge the oneness of God, submitto his Laws, and do good works in view of the hereafter. Kateregga writes:

Some of Adam's offspring who were righteous followed Allah's teaching,but others drifted into evil activities. They compromised the true guidanceby associating Allah with other gods and objects. In order to provide manwith firm and constructive guidance, God raised prophets among everypeople. The fundamental message proclaimed by all prophets was thesame. They taught or reminded man of the unity of God, the reward of lead-ing a good, pious, and peaceful life, the day of judgment, and the terriblepunishment for unbelievers. All prophets brought this same message(Islam) from Allah. 6

Rahman confirms this, claiming that "all Messengers have preachedessentially the same message, that there is one, unique God to Whomalone service and worship are due." 7 He goes on to note that "differentprophets have come to different peoples and nations at different times,but their messages are universal and identical. All these messages ema-nate from a single source: 'The Mother of the Book ' (43:4; 13:39). "8

In agreement with the above views, Abdalati argues that "becauseIslam means submission to the Good Will of God and obedience to HisBeneficial Law, and because this is the essence of the message of all God-chosen messengers, a Muslim accepts all the prophets previous toMuhammad without discrimination." Thus, "he believes that all thoseprophets . . . were Muslims, and that their religion was Islam, the onlytrue universal religion of God."9

Besides this particular mission that is shared by all prophets, classi-cal Islamic theology has assigned other functions to the coming of mes-sengers. This was summed up well by one medieval Muslim scholarwho writes:

The Apostle may come: 1) to impose a new Law and to abrogate what pre-ceded it; 2) to confirm a preceding Law in part and to abrogate it in part; 3)

6. Kateregga and Shenk, 36.7. Rahman, 83.8. Ibid., 163.9. Abdalati, 9.

Prophets 55

to summon men to observe the Law of his predecessor; 4) to impose thesimple profession of God's unity and the acknowledgement of his ownprophethood; 5) to impose that and also the observance of additional legalpractices and positive ordinances; 6) to incite men to the observance of theLaw of a Prophet who is his contemporary. 10

WHO ARE THE PROPHETS?Who are these individuals whom Muslims have acknowledged as

God's prophets throughout history? The exact number of prophets is notstated in the Qur'an (40:78), but is based on the belief that every commu-nity has had a messenger. Muslim tradition has put the number at124,000. Interestingly, most of the prophets mentioned in the Qur'an arebiblical characters. For example, in 6:84—86, after recounting the story ofAbraham, God declares: "We gave him Isaac And Jacob: all (three) Weguided: And before him We guided Noah, And among his progeny, David,Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: Thus do We reward Those whodo good: And Zakariya and John, And Jesus and Elias: All in the ranks Ofthe Righteous: And Ismail and Elisha, And Jonas, and Lot. "

Another similar list in 4:163—65 reads:

We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengersafter him: We sent inspiration to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob and theTribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave thePsalms. Of some apostles We have already told thee the story; of others wehave not;—and to Moses God spoke direct; Apostles who gave good newsas well as warning, that mankind, after (the coming) of the Apostles, shouldhave no plea against God.

Besides the above names, several other prophets are also mentionedby name in the Qur'an: Adam, Hud, Salih, Idris, Luqman, Dhul-garnain,Shu'aib, Dhu'l-Kifl, Uzair, and finally Muhammad, the Seal of prophet-hood. Due to the ambiguity of some Qur'anic passages, some students ofthe Qur'an believe twenty-eight prophets are mentioned by name, 11 butothers accept only twenty-five of these names as referring to prophets.

l2

Also with the exception of Adam and Uzair (Ezra), the rest of thenames have no clear correspondence to biblical characters. Some schol-ars try to identify all these names with a biblical character, 13 but most

10.Al-Baqillani , Miracleand Magic, ed. Richard J. McCarthy (Place de I'Etoile: LibrairieOrientale, ltd.), 17.

11. See Ajijola, 119.12. See Rauf, 8; Kateregga and Shenk, 35.13. Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur'an (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 40.


acknowledge that several of the names probably refer to Arabian proph-ets and reformers of the neighboring vicinities.

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss in detail the manyQur'anic passages that retell several Old Testament stories, either baseddirectly on Old Testament narratives or adopted from the Jewish apocry-pha. However, no less than eight chapter headings in the Qur'an recallcharacters of the Old and New Testaments. The sura of Joseph (Jacob'sson) is the longest narrative in the Qur'an. Moses is the most frequentlymentioned prophet in the Qur'an. David and Solomon receive no lessthan thirty-three mentions, and the story of Noah appears some thirtytimes. 4

Among the prophets, five are recognized to be in the highest rank andare given the title of ulu'l- Azm (people of the determination or persever-ance). They are: Muhammad (the apostle of God), Noah (the preacher ofGod), Abraham (the friend of God), Moses (the speaker with God), andJesus (the word of God). 15 Some also include Adam (the chosen of God)as the sixth person in the list. Based on the evidence in the Qur'an aloneit is safe to say that Abraham appears to occupy the highest positionamong the prophets. As Muhammad's relationship with Jews and Chris-tians deteriorated, he went beyond the figures of Jesus and Moses back toAbraham. In this way he hoped to show the superiority of Islam byappealing directly to Abraham as the father of Muslims. As the Qur'anstates, "Abraham was not a Jew Nor yet a Christian; But he was true inFaith, And bowed his will to God's, [Which is Islam]" (3:67). However, inIslamic theology, it is Muhammad who is the greatest and the last of allprophets. It is also believed that each one of these apostles brought adivine scripture, but Muslims believe the books revealed to Noah andAbraham are no longer in existence.

THE MESSAGE OF THE PROPHETSEven though many of the details of the stories of prophets are quite

different from their biblical version, the theme of most Qur'anic stories isalmost identical. The underlying message is that throughout history Godhas raised from each people a prophet or messenger. The prophet inviteshis people to worship the One and true God (often vindicating the truth-fulness of his mission by accomplishing many miraculous deeds). Usu-ally, however, the majority refuse to listen to him and bring upon them-selves the divine judgments of flood, fire, or earthquake, while thefaithful few are spared and rewarded.

14. Charis Waddy, The Muslim Mind (London/New York: Longman, 1976), 17.15. See Rauf, 8.

Prophets 57

The unity of the prophets' mission and message plays an importantrole in Islamic theology. Beginning with Adam as the first prophet andending with Muhammad as the last, all prophets form an unbreakablechain. Throughout all ages they have preached the same fundamentalmessage from God: submission to the divine will, which is the very mean-ing of the word "Islam. " For example, in 2:136 we read, "Say ye: ' Webelieve In God, and the revelation Given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail,Isaac, Jacob, And the Tribes, and that given To Moses and Jesus, and thatgiven To (all) Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference Betweenone and another of them: And we bow to God (in Islam) "' (also see 2:132;5:114).

TENSION BETWEEN ISLAM AND OTHER RELIGIONS

Islamic belief in divine prophets has brought it in tension with otherfaiths since almost the very beginning of Muhammad's mission in Ara-bia. Theoretically, all revealed religions should be compatible since theyall find their source in one God. But in reality it has always been apparentto many that there exist grave differences among the great world reli-gions. Faruqi gives a typical analysis of this situation from an Islamicperspective:

If all prophets have conveyed one and the same message, whence come allthe religions of history? Assuming that they are genuine, Islam answers thatthere can be no difference in the messages of the prophets since theirsource is one, namely, God. . . . But Islam asserts that variations of spaceand time, acculturation by alien influences, and human whims and pas-sions caused people to slip from the truth. The result was that the religionsof history all erred more or less from the truth because none has preservedthe original text of its revelation. 16

Another scholar on Islam voices a similar analysis when he notes that"in the Muslim view there is one primordial religion which has existedfrom the beginnings of humanity.... The differences between religionsare due not so much to difference in revelation as to specific historicalfactors and in particular to the different people's distortions of theirprophets' fundamentally identical teachings."

17

Because Islam eventually claimed messages from God that were con-trary to other communities of faith, such as Jews and Christians, it wasinevitable that there would be a conflict with them. This is not true of

16. Al-Faruqi, Islam, I0.17. Jacques Waardenburg, "World Religions as Seen in the Light of Islam," in Islam: Past

Influence and Present Challenge, ed. Alford T. Welch and Pierre Cachia (New York: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1979), 246.


Muhammad's earlier revelations. In the Meccan messages of Muhammadthere are positive statements about Jews and Christians. Here the prophetexpects a warm welcome from the Arabian Jews and Christians concern-ing his divine commission and proclamation of God's unity. However, astime went on and Muhammad was rejected by the majority of Jews andChristians as an imposter, Muhammad's attitude toward these peopleshifted dramatically. And the change in his disposition becomes clearlyreflected not only in the later verses of the Qur'an and his treatment of theJews, but also to a great extent in Islamic theology and culture. Indeed, itis from this that a Jihad (Holy War) emerges (see Chapter 8).

In the Meccan and even some early Medinan revelations, we candetect a very friendly attitude toward Jews and Christians: "Those whobelieve (in the Qur'an), And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), Andthe Christians ... Any who believe in God And the Last Day, And workrighteousness, Shall have their reward With their Lord: on them Shall beno fear, nor shall they grieve" (2:62). Also in 29:46 we read, "And disputeye not With the People of the Book, except with means better . . . But say,'We believe In the Revelation which has Come down to us and in thatWhich came down to you.

After Muhammad was rejected by Jews and Christians, he took a dif-ferent attitude toward people of the Book: "0 ye who believe! Take notthe Jews And the Christians For your friends and protectors: They are butfriends and protectors To each other" (5:54). "If anyone desires A religionother than Islam (submission to God), Never will it be accepted Of him;and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks Of those who have lost (Allspiritual good)" (3:85). Of course, from one passage in the Qur'an itseems that Muhammad felt more fond of Christians than Jews: "Strong-est among men in enmity To the Believers wilt thou Find the Jews andPagans; And nearest among them in love To the Believers wilt thou Findthose who say, 'We are Christians'" (5:85). But as Richard Bell points out,"The relationship with the Christians ended as that with the Jews hadended—in war." 18 Thus we read in 9:29, "Fight those who believe not InGod ... Nor acknowledge the Religion Of Truth, (even if they are) Of thePeople of the Book, Until they pay the Jizya With willing submission, Andfeel themselves subdued."

According to the Qur'an, the reason for such a change of tone towardthe people of the book is that the Jews in particular, despite their manyblessings from the Lord and the fact that they had received many proph-ets for their guidance, consistently broke their covenant with their Lordand repeatedly rejected his messengers (4:155-61). In a very graphicillustration we read, "The similitude of those Who were charged With the

18. Bell, 159.

Prophets 59

(obligations Of the) Mosaic Law, But subsequently failed in those (obli-gations), is That of a donkey Which carries huge tomes (But understandsthem not)" (62:5). One peculiar charge against the Jews is that they calledUzair (Ezra) a son of God (9:30). The specific charge against Christians isthat they had blasphemously raised Jesus to equality with God. Further-more, they divided themselves into various sects, and each sect ignoredthe light of their own common Scripture. Finally, their rebellion reachedits limit when they rejected God's final messenger, even though theysecretly felt convicted of the truthfulness of his message (3:110; cf. 45:16-

17; 5:14; 57:16).

Because of the Jewish and Christian breach of their covenants withGod, the Qur'an claims that God has set aside the former communities offaith (ummat) and has now entrusted his commands to his new people,the Muslims. "Ye are the best Of Peoples, evolved For mankind, Enjoin-ing what is right, Forbidding what is wrong, And believing in God" (3:110;

cf. 6:89).Along with this change of opinion regarding the former ummats we

can also detect a certain shift (even if not a total rejection) in the Qur'anicpronouncements concerning former Scriptures. For example, in manyinstances, particularly in the earlier Meccan suras, the Judeo-ChristianScriptures are given such noble titles as "the Book of God," "the Word ofGod," "a light and guidance to man," "a decision for all matters, and aguidance and mercy," "the lucid Book," "the illumination (al furqan),""the gospel with its guidance and light, confirming the preceding Law,"and "a guidance and warning to those who fear God. "19 Christians aretold to look into their own Scriptures to find God's revelation for them(5:50), and even Muhammad himself at one point is exhorted to test thetruthfulness of his own message against the contents of the previousdivine revelations to Jews and Christians (10:94).

However, on other occasions, especially in the later Medinan suras, theQur'an gives a less favorable view of the previous Scriptures (especiallythe Old Testament), mainly due to the alleged distortions imposed onthem by the teachers of the Law. The charges against people of the Bookand their tampering with their Scriptures include concealing God's Word(2:42; 3:71), verbally distorting the message in their books (3:78; 4:46), notbelieving in all the parts of their Scriptures (2:85), and not knowing whattheir own Scriptures really teach (2:78). Even though in their historicalcontexts most of these charges were directed against the Jews, by implica-tion Muslims have also included the Christians. It is due to these apparentconflicts in the Qur'anic accounts that we find in the history of Islam, and

19. John Takle, "Islam and Christianity," in Studies in Islamic Lau), Religion and Society,ed. II. S. Bhatia (New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications, 1989), 217.


even among contemporary Muslims, various contradictory views regard-ing the Bible, the Jews, and Christians. For instance, the well-known Egyp-tian reformer, Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) writes: "The Bible, the NewTestament and the Qur'an are three concordant books; religious menstudy all three and respect them equally. Thus the divine teaching is com-pleted, and the true religion shines across the centuries. "20 Another Mus-lim author tries to harmonize the three great world religions in this way:"Judaism lays stress on Justice and Right: Christianity, on Love and Char-ity: Islam, on Brotherhood and Peace. But in the main, the fundamentalsimilarities between the three faiths must not be lost sight of in a meticu-lous examination of details."

21

On the other hand, by far the most typical Islamic approach to thissubject is characterized by comments of the Muslim apologist, Ajijola.He writes:

The first five books of the Old Testament do not constitute the originalTorah, but parts of the Torah have been mingled up with other narrativeswritten by human beings and the original guidance of the Lord is lost inthat quagmire. Similarly the four Gospels of Christ are not the originalGospels as they came from Prophet Jesus ... the original and the ficti-tious, the Divine and the human are so intermingled that the grain cannotbe separated from the chaff. The fact is that the original Word of God ispreserved neither with the Jews nor with the Christians. Qur'an, on theother hand, is fully preserved and not a jot or tittle has been changed orleft out in it.

22

The Qur'anic commentator Yusuf Ali shares a similar viewpoint.Regarding the New Testament, he contends that "the Injil spoken of bythe Qur 'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels nowreceived as canonical by Christians. It is the single Gospel which, Islamteaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it sur-vive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others of whichtraces survive. "23

THE CORRUPTION ( TAHRIF) OF SCRIPTUREThese charges bring us to the Islamic doctrine of tahrif or corruption

of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Based on some of the above Qur 'anicverses and, more important, exposure to the actual contents of other

20. Emile Dermenghem, Muhammad and the Islamic Tradition ( Westport: GreenwoodPress, Publishers, 1974), 138.

21. See Waddy, 116.22. Ajijola, 79.23. David Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984), 33.

Prophets 61

Scriptures, Muslim theologians have generally formulated two differentresponses. According to Nazir-Ali, "the early Muslim commentators (e.g.Al-Tabari and Ar-Razi) comment that the alteration is tahrif brat ma'ni,a corruption of the meaning of the text without tampering with the textitself. Gradually, the dominant view changed to tahrif bi'al-lafz, corrup-tion of the text itself."24 The Spanish theologians Ibn Hazm and Al-Biruni, along with most Muslims, hold this view.

Another Qur'anic scholar claims that "the biblical Torah was appar-ently not identical with the pure tawrat given as a revelation to Moses,but there was considerable variation in opinion on the question to whatextent the former scriptures were corrupted." On the one hand, "

Ibn-Hazm who was the first thinker to consider the problem of tabdil sys-tematically, contended . . . that the text itself had been changed or forged(taghyr), and he drew attention to immoral stories which had found aplace within the corpus." But on the other hand, "Ibn-Khaldun held thatthe text itself had not been forged but that Jews and Christians had mis-interpreted their scripture, especially those texts which predicted orannounced the mission of Muhammad and the coming of Islam. Now itdepended very much on his particular interpretation of tabdil whether aMuslim scholar showed more or less respect for the Bible, and whetherand how he could quote from it. Ibn-Hazm, for instance, rejects nearlythe whole Old Testament as a forgery, but cheerfully quotes the tawratwhen bad reports are given of the faith and behaviour of the Banu Isra'ilas proofs against the Jews and their religion. "25

In addition to the above charges against the Jews, there have also beenseveral direct charges against Christians and their Scriptures. The accu-sations are: (1) There has been a change and forgery of textual divine rev-elation; (2) there have been doctrinal mistakes such as the belief in theincarnation of Christ, the trinity of the Godhead, and the doctrine of orig-inal sin; (3) there have been mistakes in religious practices such as thesacraments, use of images, and other church laws 26

Also based on the Islamic doctrine of progressive revelation, Muslimsclaim that the Qur'an fulfills, and even sets aside the previous, less com-plete revelations. One Muslim theologian echoes this conviction by stat-ing that a Muslim needs to believe in the tawrat, the Zabur (the Psalms ofDavid), and the Injil (Gospel). But he then claims that "according to themost eminent theologians" the books in their present state "have beentampered with," and goes on to say, "It is to be believed that the Qur'anis the noblest of the books.... It is the last of the God-given scriptures to

24. Nazir-Ali, 46.25. Waardenburg, 257.26. Ibid., 261-63.


come down, it abrogates all the books which preceded it. . . . It is impos-sible for it to suffer any change or alteration."

27

Another important debate among Muslim theologians on this point isthe question of the eternal destiny ofpeople of the Book. Even though themajority of the average Muslim masses might consider anyone who hasbeen a "good person" worthy of eternal salvation, accounting for all theQur'anic evidences on this subject has created much uncertainty.

Among orthodox Muslim theologians, Jews and Christians weregenerally regarded as unbelievers (kafar) because of their rejection ofMuhammad as a true prophet from God. For example, we notice thateven though Tabari (d. 923), the most respected Muslim commentator ofall time, distinguishes between the people of the Book and the polythe-ists ( mushrikun), and expresses a higher opinion of the former, he clearlydeclares that the majority of Jews and Christians are in unbelief andtransgression because of their refusal to acknowledge Muhammad'struthfulness. 28

Adding to this complication is the charge against the Christian beliefin the divinity of Christ, a belief that amounts to committing the unpar-donable sin of shirk, and is condemned throughout the Qur'an. TheQur'anic condemnation of Christians is highlighted in 5:75, "They doblaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son Of Mary.... Whoever Joinsother gods with God—God will forbid him The Garden, and the Fire Willbe his abode."'

On the other hand, the contemporary Muslim theologian, Fazlur Rah-man, goes against "the vast majority of Muslim commentators. " Hechampions the opinion that salvation is not acquired by formally joiningthe Muslim faith, but as the Qur'an points out, by believing in God andthe last day and by doing good deeds. 29 The debate continues and eachindividual Muslim can take a different side of this issue based on his ownunderstanding of the Qur'anic evidence. Regarding the salvation of othergroups such as the Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians, Muslim opinionvaries. Some Muslims view these religions as being originally similar toIslam and from God but no longer true to their origin. Others reject themas false religions from the very beginning.

THE PROPHET JESUS IN ISLAMNo chapter on the Islamic view of prophets can be complete, espe-

cially for the Christian reader, without a brief mention of the Muslim

27. Jeffery, 126-28.28. Peter Antes, "Relations with the Unbelievers in Islamic Theology," in Schimmel and

Falaturi, 104—5; see also Islamochritiana, 1980, 6, 105-48.29. See Rahman, 166—67.

Prophets 63

understanding of Jesus Christ. Whereas there are some areas of generalagreement between the Qur'anic and Old Testament views of prophets(with one major exception being the Islamic claim that they were sinless),there is little substantial correspondence between the Qur'anic and NewTestament views of the person of Jesus Christ. According to the Qur'anJesus was merely a human being who was chosen by God as a prophetand sent for the guidance of the people of Israel.

THE NATURE OF CHRIST

Interestingly, in spite of its emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, in manyrespects the Qur'an seems to portray Jesus as a unique prophet in history.Jesus is mentioned in ninety-three verses of fifteen suras, a total of ninety-seven times (although in most cases quite briefly and only as a name inthe prophetic list). He is recognized as a great Hebrew prophet, and onlyhis name along with Abraham's, appears in every list of prophets. TheQur'an gives Jesus such honorary titles as the "Messiah" (used eleventimes), "the Word of God," and "the Spirit of God" (4:169-71), "the Speechof Truth " (19:34-35), a " Sign unto men, " and "Mercy from (God) " (19:21).

We must note that even though the above titles and activities havemuch significance in Christian theology, as they relate to the divine char-acter of Christ, "to the Muslim they lack entirely the content of deity. "30

Many Christian writers have tried to read too much into these passagesin their attempts to prove certain biblical doctrines from the text of theQur'an.31 But if we are to do justice to the Qur'anic text, we ought to letIslamic theology speak for itself in determining the significance of theabove titles. 32 As one scholar on Islam warns:

It is primarily Christian missionaries, or certain Orientalists who are eitherthemselves theologians, or who are well disposed to Christian theology,who overestimate the role of Jesus in the Koran. They are misled by the wayof understanding Jesus which they retain from their Christian Tradition. Itis no surprise that, under such circumstances, they arrive at false conclu-sions and evaluations.33

So what exactly is this Qur'anic picture of Jesus? And what role, if any,does Jesus play in the Muslim awareness? Despite the fact that theaccount of Jesus' life is filled with extraordinary miracles, and the titlesfor Jesus are very complimentary, the Qur'anic verdict concerning his

30. Takle, 218.31. Abdul-Haqq, 67-68.32. See Cragg, 32-33.33. Smail Balic, The Image of Jesus in Contemporary Islamic Theology," in Schimmel

and Falaturi, 3.

64 The Basic Doctrines of Orthodox !slam

identity is clearly summarized in 5:75, "Christ the son of Mary Was nomore than An Apostle; many were The apostles that passed away Beforehim. His mother Was a woman of truth. They had both to eat Their(daily) food."

This attitude is also expressed by Kateregga. He writes, "Muslims dorespect the Messiah, Jesus, profoundly, but they do not believe that he is,therefore, superior to all prophets. In fact, the Qur'an affirms that Jesusforetold the coming of the Seal of the Prophets [Muhammad]."

34

Furthermore, both the Qur'an and the universal opinion of Muslimsvehemently insist that Jesus is not the divine Son of God. The Qur'an isfilled with verses that speak against the idea of God begetting a son. In19:35 we read, "It is not befitting To (the majesty of) God That He shouldbeget A son. Glory be to Him! When He determines A matter, He only saysTo it, 'Be,' and it is." And in 10:68 we read, "They say, 'God hath begottenA son'—Glory be to Him! Ile is self-sufficient.... No warrant Have ye forthis! Say ye About God what ye know not?" In another instance we arespecifically told that the creation of Jesus was similar to Adam, by the factthat both were created by God's command (3:59).

Besides the Qur'anic charge that the idea of God begetting a son isagainst the truth ofGod's majesty and glory, it seems that the Qur'an andMuslims have generally understood the idea of a begotten Son of Godquite literally. In 72:3 we read, "And exalted is the Majesty Of our Lord: Hehas Taken neither a wife Nor a son." Commenting on this verse, Yusuf Aliobserves that Islam denies "the doctrine of a son begotten by God, whichwould also imply a wife of whom he was begotten."35 And reasoning fromthis physical understanding of sonship, the world-renowned Muslimapologist, Ahmad Deedat, argues, "If Jesus is God, and the very Son ofGod because He has no earthly father, then Adam is a greater God,because he had no father and no mother! Simple, basic common sensedemands this deduction."

36

The Qur 'an affirms the virgin birth (19:16-21; 3:37-45) and Jesus '

many miraculous acts recorded in the New Testament, such as his heal-ings and raising people from the dead. It also refers to miracles of Jesusrecorded in the New Testament apocryphal books, such as creating livebirds from clay and speaking as a newborn infant in his cradle proclaim-ing his prophethood (19:29-31; 5:113). In addition the Qur'an affirms thatGod "raised him up" to heaven (4:158).37

34. Kateregga, 47.35. Yusuf Ali , 1625.36. Anis A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 266.37. For an excellent work on all the Qur'anic references to Jesus, see Parrinder.

Prophets 65

In addition to these Qur'anic accounts, we also see a reverential treat-ment of Jesus in Islamic tradition. In one hadith from Bukhari we readthat the prophet Muhammad said, "Whoever believes there is no god butGod, alone without partner, that Muhammad is His messenger, thatJesus is the servant and messenger of God, His word breathed into Maryand a spirit emanating from Him ... shall be received by God intoHeaven. " 38 And again according to Bukhari, we are told that on anotheroccasion the prophet said, "I am nearest of men to the Son of Mary.Between Jesus and me there has been no prophet. "39 There is also astrong prophetic tradition that every child born in the world has beenstruck by the devil except Jesus (some accounts also add Mary).

However, it is a mistake to think that based on the above passages wecan entertain the thought that Islam portrays Christ as someone morethan a mere prophet. For example, regarding the Islamic understandingof the virgin birth, Cragg insightfully comments:

The fascinating situation in Islam is that virgin birth stands alone, does notserve, or effectuate, Incarnation, indeed, quite excludes it. Mary is under-stood as the virgin mother of the prophet Isa. She gives birth to him withouthuman intervention in order that he and she may be 'signs' and that hisprophethood . . . may enter the world. 40

CHRIST 'S MISSION

Many Muslims believe that Jesus' ministry was limited to the nation ofIsrael, and his revelation was basically one of confirmation and revisionof the Mosaic covenant (5:46—47). For example, Yusuf Ali , in his commen-tary to the Qur'an, states, "The mission of some of the apostles, like Jesus,was different—less wide in scope than that of Mustafa (Muhammad)." 41

Of the actual content of Jesus' life and message we are given littleinformation in the Qur'an. What we are told is that he was given the gos-pel by God as guidance for his people, invited people to worship one God(5:72), permitted the Jews to do certain things that were forbidden by theprevious law, and performed many miracles for his disciples and the peo-ple around him. In agreement with this judgment, Cragg writes:

The immediate impression on the general reader from what the Qur'an hasto tell him about Jesus is that of its brevity. . . . It is further surprising thatwithin the limits of some ninety verses in all no less than sixty-four belong

38. Understanding Islam and the Muslims, prepared by the Islamic Affairs Dept., TheEmbassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington, D.C ., no date.

39. See Parrinder, 39.40. See Cragg, 67.41. Yusuf Ali, 96.


to the extended, and partly duplicate, nativity stories.... This leaves a baretwenty-six or so verses to present the rest and some reiteration herereduces the total still further. It has often been observed that the New Tes-tament Gospels are really passion narratives with extended introduction. Itcould well be said that the Jesus cycle in the Qur'an is nativity narrativeswith attenuatedsequel.42

Cragg goes on to say that the idea that "Jesus had a specific—somewould say a limited—mission to Jewry is stressed in the Qur'an. OnlyMuhammad as the 'seal of the prophets' belongs to all times and places."Thus, "the 'universality' which Christianity is alleged to have 'read into'Jesus, violating this more explicitly Jewish vocation, is seen as part of thatde-Semiticisation of Jesus' Gospel, which is ... attributed to the earlyGentile Church."

43

CHRIST ' S DEATH

Besides the fundamental Muslim and Christian disagreement con-cerning the person and mission of Jesus Christ, there is also the centu-ries-long debate about the Qur'anic denial of Jesus' crucifixion. In a con-text in which the Qur'an is strongly condemning the Jews for repeatedlybreaching their covenant with their God, we come upon a highly contro-versial account in 4:157–59:

That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Apos-tle of God';—But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was madeTo appear to them, And those who differ Therein are full of doubts, With no(certain) knowledge, But only conjecture to follow, For of a surety Theykilled him not:— Nay, God raised him up Unto Himself; and God Is Exaltedin Power, Wise;—And there is none Of the People of the Book But mustbelieve in him Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He will be awitness against them.

Commenting on the above passage, Yusuf Ali writes: "The end of thelife of Jesus on earth is as much involved in mystery as his birth. . . . TheOrthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrinethat his life was taken on the Cross, that he died and was buried, that onthe third day he rose in the body. . . . The Quranic teaching is that Christwas not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain appar-ent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some ofhis enemies; that disputations, doubts and conjectures on such mattersare vain; and that he was taken up to God."

44

42. Cragg, 25-26.43. Ibid., 27.44. Yusuf Ali, 230.

There are various speculations among Muslim commentators regard-ing the last hours of Jesus' life on earth. Based on the phrase that "it wasmade to appear to them," orthodox Muslims have traditionally inter-preted this to mean that Jesus was not crucified on the cross, but thatGod made someone else look like Jesus and this person was mistakenlycrucified as Christ. And the words "God raised him up unto Himself"have often been taken to mean that Jesus was taken up alive to heavenwithout dying.

As to the identity of this "substitute" and the question of how this sub-stitute was changed into the likeness of Jesus, Muslim commentators arenot in agreement. Candidates for this individual have ranged from Judasto Pilate to Simon of Cyrene or one of Jesus' close disciples. Some haveclaimed that one of the disciples volunteered to take upon himself thelikeness of Jesus so his master could escape the Jews, but others haveinsisted that God cast Jesus' likeness on one of Jesus' enemies. 45 Oneexample is the view of Baidawi, the learned thirteenth-century jurist andexegete whose commentary has been regarded by Sunni Muslims almostas a holy book:

It is related that a group of Jews reviled Isa [Jesus] . . . then the Jews gatheredto kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him that he would take him up toheaven. Then Isa said to his disciples, "Which one of you is willing to havemy likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?"One of them accepted, and Allah cast the likeness of Isa upon him, and hewas killed and crucified. It is said also that he was one who acted the hypo-crite toward Isa, and went out to lead the Jews to him. But Allah cast thelikeness of Isa upon him, and he was taken and crucified and killed.46

The view that Judas replaced Christ on the cross was again recently pop-ularized in the Muslim world by The Gospel of Barnabas (see Appendix 3).Regarding the question of what then happened to Jesus himself, Muslimsusually contend that Jesus escaped the cross by being taken up to heavenand that one day he will come back to earth and play a central role in thefuture events. Based on some of the alleged sayings of Muhammad it isbelieved that just before the end of time Jesus will come back to earth, killthe Antichrist (al-Dajjal), kill all pigs, break the cross, destroy the syna-gogues and churches, establish the religion of Islam, live for forty years, andthen will be buried in the city of Medina beside the prophet Muhammad 47

Of course we need to point out that even though these views have beenheld by orthodox Islam throughout the centuries, some Muslim thinkers

45. See Sox, Chapter 6; Parrinder, 108-11.46. See Sox, 96.47. Sec ibid., 116-17. Also see our discussion of this point in Chapter 6.


today are beginning to distance themselves from such theologicalexpressions (although this trend still does not apply to the traditionalistMuslim camps or the average masses). The well-respected Egyptianwriter, Hussein Haykal, writes:

The idea of a substitute for Christ is a very crude way of explaining the Quranictext. They had to explain a lot to the masses. No cultured Muslim believes inthis nowadays. The text is taken to mean that the Jews thought they killedChrist but God raised him unto Him in a way we can leave unexplainedamong the several mysteries we have taken for granted on faith alone 48

Several Qur'anic verses speak or hint about the death of Christ (2:87;3:55; 4:157—58; 19:33). Thus, several Muslim groups today believe that4:157-59, if taken within the total Qur'anic context, must be understoodto say that it was Jesus who was tortured on the cross, but that he did notdie there. This is in contradistinction to the traditional view of the moreambiguous verses, which suggest that Jesus' death must be referring tohis second coming. The explanation adopted by this view is usually a ver-sion of the swoon theory. The major adherents of this view are theAhmadiyyas (originating in Pakistan), a highly active Islamic group in theWest, who are often considered by orthodox Muslims to he a hereticalsect (see Appendix 1). This particular group also believes that Jesus even-tually died in India, and that his grave is still there today.

The great majority of Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on thecross but that he was taken up bodily into heaven. This they base on theQur'anic passage that declares: "Behold! God said: 'O Jesus! I will takethee And raise thee to Myself" (3:55). 49

It might seem perplexing as to why the Qur'an should deny the deathof Christ, an event that is considered by the great majority of humankindas an uncontested fact of history. Sir Norman Anderson explains theQur'anic motivation for this denial:

The rationale of this is that the Qur'an regularly reports that earlier proph-ets had at first encountered resistance, unbelief, antagonism and persecu-tion; but finally the prophets had been vindicated and their opponents putto shame. God had intervened on their behalf. So Jesus, accepted in theQur'an as one of the greatest of the prophets . . . could not have been left to

48. See Haykal ' s City of Wrong, 222, taken from Parrinder, 112.49. Contrary to the majority view, the late rector of Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1942

denied the bodily ascension of Christ by claiming that neither the Qur'an nor the sacredtraditions of the Prophet in any way "authorize the correctness of the belief ... that Jesuswas taken up to the heaven with his body, and is alive there even now, and would descendtherefrom in the latter days" (Parrinder, 124).

Prophets 69

his enemies. Instead, God must have intervened and frustrated their evilpurpose. Muhammad, as himself a prophet—even the 'seal' of prophets—had a personal interest in the certainty of divine succour. If Messiah 'Isa

had been allowed to die in this cruel and shameful way, then God himselfmust have failed—which was an impossible thought. 50

CONCLUSIONIn the final section of this chapter we focused our attention on the

Muslim view of Jesus, mainly because of its importance for the Christianreader. However, it is of utmost importance that when speaking ofprophets, we should focus on the one whom Muslims believe is the lastand greatest prophet, Muhammad. Belief in the prophethood of Muham-mad is the second part of the Islamic shahada, "There is no god but Allah,and Muhammad is His prophet." Furthermore, according to the Muslimunderstanding of the prophets' roles in history, all the prophets prior tothe advent of Muhammad were limited in their mission. Since theirteachings have either been completely lost or severely corrupted, andbecause their revelations were partial and incomplete, 51 it becomesabsolutely necessary for us to understand how, according to Islam,Muhammad fulfills and completes the office of prophet. Therefore, it isnecessary to turn our attention to a historical study of the person ofMuhammad and his significant role in Islamic theology.

50. Norman Anderson, Islam in the Modern World (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 219.51. See Ajijola, 117-18.

4M U HAM MAD

Islam cannot be understood without considering the role of theprophet Muhammad. He is important both for the inception of Islam asa major world religion, and the shaping of Islamic theology and civiliza-tion for the past fourteen centuries. It is because of his great significancethat we devote this chapter to a study of Muhammad. First, we will lookat the life and career of Muhammad in seventh-century Arabia. Then wewill focus on his impact and place in Islamic culture and theology.

MUHAMMAD 'S LIFE

BIRTH AND YOUTHWe have very little reliable historical information about Muhammad's

birth and formative years as a Meccan youth. However, this much weknow: He was born into the Hashim family of the powerful tribe ofQuraysh around A.D. 570 in Mecca, a great city of commerce in the Ara-bian peninsula. Muhammad's father, Abdullah, passed away before hisson's birth, and his mother, Amina, died when he was only six years old.At the age of eight Muhammad lost his influential grandfather, Abd al-Muttalib, who had been taking care of him since his birth. He was thenput under the care of his loving uncle, Abu Talib.

According to legend, a host of angels joyously attended his birth) Assoon as the infant was born, he fell to the ground, took a handful of dustand gazed toward heaven, proclaiming, "God is Great." He was born

1. Annemarie Schimmel, And Muhammad Is His Messenger: "the Veneration of theProphet in Islamic Piety (Chapel Hill: The university of North Carolina Press, 1985), 150-51.

70

Muhammad 71

clean, circumcised, with his navel cord already cut . 2 Many other globalsigns are said to have followed this event, such as the appearance of alight that illuminated the palaces of Bostra in Syria, 3 and the flooding ofa lake that "caused the palace of Khosroes (the King of Persia) to crack,and the fire of Zoroastrians to die out." 4

Even though Muhammad was part of a noble and prosperous family, itappears that at the time the household of Abu Talib was somewhat pov-erty-stricken; the young Muhammad had to earn his own livelihood byserving as a shepherd boy and trader. One important incident recountedin all his biographies relates to a business trip that the young child(around the age of twelve) took with his uncle's caravan to Syria. It is saidthat a Syrian monk by the name of Buhaira recognized the young Muham-mad as the coming final prophet who had been prophesied about in allthe previous Scriptures. He then advised Muhammad's uncle to "guardhim carefully against the Jews, for by Allah! if they see him, and knowabout him what I know, they will do him evil."5

Overall, what we can gather from Islamic sources is that Muhammad,though orphaned, lived a relatively normal childhood. As Haykal com-ments, "Muhammad grew like any other child would in the city of Mak-kah."6 Of course, according to Islamic tradition one major exception inthe case of Muhammad is the fact that he was spared from participatingin the pagan activities of Meccan life. 7 He was also known to he sincereand honest and his title even before his call to prophethood was Al-Amin,the faithful one.

MARRIAGE AND ADULT LIFE

At the age of twenty-five, after conducting a successful caravan trade toSyria for a wealthy widow by the name of Khadija, Muhammad acceptedKhadija's offer to marry her. Despite the fact that she was fifteen years hissenior, the marriage proved to be a happy one for both. The couple hadtwo sons who died in infancy, and four daughters. Almost nothing isknown about this stage of Muhammad's adult life except that it seems hisgood reputation and respect constantly grew among his people.

2. Tor Andrae, Mohammed, the Man and his Faith, trans. Theophil Menzel (New York:Harper & Row, Publishers, 1955), 35; All Dashti, Twenty Three Years (London: George Allen& Unwin, 1985), 2.

3. See Schimmel, 150-51.4. Mahmud, 39.5. Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah I The Life ofMuhammad], trans. A. Guillaume (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1980), 81.6. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad (North American Trust Publi-

cations, 1976), 55.7. Ibid., 59.


It is during this time period that many have speculated Muhammadgrew more and more discontent with the paganism and idolatry of hissociety. This was not unique since several other prominent citizens ofMecca at that time had already denounced the paganism of their home-land and declared their faith in the one true God, including Jews andChristians. 8 In accordance with the custom of the pious souls, Muham-mad began the practice of devoting "a period of each year to a retreat ofworship, asceticism, and prayer."9 Some say he would spend the wholemonth of Ramadan in a cave on Mount Hira two miles north of the city ofMecca, living on meager rations and meditating in peace and solitude. 10

PROPHETIC CALL

After years of meditation in solitude, finally in the year A.D. 610, whenMuhammad was forty years of age, he believed that he received his pro-phetic call from God through the angel Gabriel. Ibn lshaq, the earliestbiographer of Muhammad, relates the story in the following way:

When it was the night on which God honoured him with his mission andshowed mercy on His servants thereby, Gabriel brought him the commandof God. 'He came to me,' said the apostle of God, 'while I was asleep, with acoverlet of brocade whereon was some writing, and said, "Read!" I said,"What shall I read?" He pressed me with it so tightly that I thought it wasdeath; then he let me go and said, "Read!" I said, "What shall I read?" Hepressed me with it again so that I thought it was death; then he let me goand said "Read!" I said, "What shall I read?" He pressed me with it the thirdtime so that I thought it was death and said "Read!" I said, "What then shallI read?"—and this I said only to deliver myself from him, lest he should dothe same to me again. He said: "Read in the name of thy Lord who created,Who created man of blood coagulated. Read! Thy Lord is the most benefi-cent, Who taught by the pen, Taught that which they knew not unto

men"[96:1—51 . So I read it, and he departed from me. And I awoke from mysleep, and it was as though these words were written on my heart.' 11

There are conflicting opinions among Muslim historians about severalof the details of the above account.12 However, this appears to be themost accepted version of the beginning of Muhammad's propheticcareer.

8. Three of these individuals later became Christians. See Haykal, 67-68.9. See Haykal, 70.10.Many Western historians of Islam see this practice as a result of the influence of the

Syrian Christian monks.11.Ibn lshaq, 106.12.See Andrae, 44-47; and Jeffery, Islam, Muhammad and His Religion, 15-21.

Muhammad 73

At first Muhammad was deathly afraid of the source of his newly foundrevelation, believing that he was possessed by a jinn or evil spirit. But hefound in Khadija a great source of comfort and encouragement. Khadijais also said to have relayed this incident to her Christian cousin Waraqah,who upon hearing her descriptions reassured her that Muhammad'ssource of revelation was the same as that of Moses, and that he too wouldbe a prophet of his nation. Ibn Ishaq relays the following account:

And I came to Khadija and sat by her thigh and drew close to her. She said,"O Abu'l-Qasim [Muhammad], where has thou been?" ... l said to her,"Woe is me poet or possessed." She said, "I take refuge in God from that... .God would not treat you thus.... This cannot be, my dear. Perhaps you didsee something." "Yes, I did," I said. Then I told her of what I had seen; andshe said, "Rejoice, 0 son of my uncle, and be of good heart. Verily, by Himin whose hand is Khadija's soul, I have hope that thou wilt be the prophetof this people." Then she rose and gathered her garments about her and setforth to her cousin Waraqa B. Naufal . . . who had become a Christian andread the scriptures and learned from those that follow the Torah and theGospel. And when she related to him what the apostle of God told her hehad seen and heard, Waraqa cried, "Holy! Holy! Verily by Him in whosehand is Waraqa's soul, if thou has spoken to me the truth ... he is theprophet of this people." 13

After the advent of the first revelation came a long interval of silencethat, according to some accounts, lasted about three years. Once againMuhammad sank into the depths of despair, feeling forsaken by God andeven entertaining thoughts of suicide. But this interlude also passed andthe prophet resumed receiving the messages from the angel.

Muhammad began his ministry by preaching his mission—first amonghis friends and relatives secretly, and thereafter publicly in the city.Hecalled this new faith Islam (submission) and claimed that he was merelya warner to his people. His basic message consisted of belief in the onesovereign God, resurrection and the last judgment, and the practicing ofcharity to the poor and the orphans. Among his first converts were hisloyal wife Khadija, his cousin Ali, his adopted son Zaid, and his lifelongfaithful companion Abu Bakr.

THE PEOPLE 'S RESPONSE

Even though Muhammad was gradually attracting a small group of fol-lowers, most of whom were young and of no great social standing, thegreat majority of the powerful and influential Meccans opposed this new

13. See Ibn Ishaq, 106-7. For the account of Muhammad's original revelation and hissubsequent doubt and reassurance, also see Al–Bukhari, vol. I., 2-4.


self-proclaimed prophet. The opposition grew from indifference to hos-tility against the new faith. Several factors were involved in the dynamicsof this antagonistic relationship.

On a religious level the powerful Meccans resisted Muhammad's doc-trine of God's oneness, since it went against their belief in the power ofidols, gods, and goddesses. Some modern historians believe that theMeccans of Muhammad's time no longer had an active faith in their ownreligious institutions but were interested in preserving the central sanc-tuary of Mecca as a lucrative destination for pilgrimages. They alsoshowed a great dislike for Muhammad's constant warning of the hereaf-ter, the last judgment. On the social or cultural level, the Meccansrejected Muhammad because of their fear that their inherited way of lifewas being attacked and destroyed. The old was threatened by the new, ascenario not uncommon in the history of humankind (34:43).

Another interesting insight gathered from evidence in the Qur'an isthat an important cause for "the indignation of the leading circles, then,was that a common man . . . who possessed no natural claim to authorityand prestige, should set himself up as a prophet and claim to haveauthority over others." 14

These elements gave rise to a new wave of persecution againstMuhammad and his followers. We are not certain about the extent of thepersecution of Muslims in Mecca. There was some direct physical vio-lence, especially toward the less affluent individuals in the society. How-ever, Muhammad's life was well protected by virtue of his close ties toAbu Talib, but he was not immune from verbal abuse by his mockingopponents (such as accusations that he was a soothsayer, a madman, oreven demon-possessed), or occasional annoyances such as having filththrown at his house. The continual harassment of his followers is said tohave led to the flight of a considerable number of Muslims, who soughtrefuge under the Christian king of Abyssinia.

The earliest biographers of the prophet mention an interesting inci-dent that occurred during this mid-Meccan period. It is related that inone of his sermons in front of the leaders of Meccan antagonists,Muhammad, in order to win the support of his opponents, proclaimedthat the favorite deities al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat could he considereddivine beings whose intercession was effectual with God. But soon theprophet believed these words to be interpolations of Satan and substi-tuted the words that we now have in 53:19—23 (see also 22:51). These havebecome known as the "Satanic verses." Some modern biographers ofMuhammad, like Haykal, try to discredit this story. But to many, it seemsinconceivable that later generations of Muslims should have invented

14. Andrae, 122.

Muhammad 75

this about their own prophet. Other contemporary Muslims, like Rah-man, view this incident as perfectly intelligible. As Watt points out,

The first thing to be said about the story is that it cannot be a sheer inven-tion. Muhammad must at some point have recited as part of the Qur'an theverses which were later rejected as satanic in origin. No Muslim could pos-sibly have invented such a story about Muhammad, and no reputableMuslim scholar would have accepted it from a non-Muslim unless fullyconvinced of its truth. The Muslims of today tend to reject the story since itcontradicts their idealized picture of Muhammad; but, on the other hand itcould be taken as evidence that Muhammad was 'a human being likethemselves ' (41:6; etc.). 15

As the tension between the believers and the Meccan aristocratsincreased, it became obvious to Muhammad that his mission was notsucceeding in Mecca; he needed to seek a new base of operation. Fur-thermore, in the year 619, he also lost his faithful wife, Khadija, and hisstaunch, but unbelieving protector, Abu Talib. After the passing of AbuTalib, Muhammad's safety was no longerguaranteed.16

Another often repeated story about this latter part of the Meccanperiod is Muhammad's journey into heaven. According to Islamic tradi-tion, one night the prophet was taken by the angel Gabriel from Mecca toJerusalem (hence the importance of Jerusalem in Islam), and thenthrough the seven heavens where he visited with all the previous proph-ets (Jesus was found in the second heaven, Moses in the sixth, and Abra-ham in the seventh). Finally he was taken into the presence of God wherehe received the specific procedures for the Islamic worship of dailyprayers. 17 Many contemporary Muslim authors consider this story apurely spiritual event. 18

The news of this fantastic mystical experience led to an increase in thehostility of the Meccan opposition, and even many of the faithful beganto doubt their prophet's truthfulness. Muhammad's situation was get-ting more bleak, especially after several attempts to find a basis for sup-port among some of the neighboring Arab towns and tribes failed. How-ever, Muhammad soon found a refreshing relief from the representativesof the city of Yathrib, later called Medina. In the summer of A.D. 621, adozen men from Medina who were participating in the annual pilgrim-age to Ka'bah in Mecca, at the time a pagan shrine, secretly confessed

15. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad 's Mecca, 86.16. For the Arab customs of family protection, see ibid., 15-20.17. Andrew Rippin and Jan Knappert, eds. and trans., Textual Sources for the Study of

Islam ( Manchester: University Press, 1986), 68-72; Jeffery, 35-46; and Williams, 66-69.

18. See Haykal, 139-47.

76 The Basic Doctrines of Orthodox /slam

Islam before Muhammad. At the pilgrimage in the following year, a rep-resentative party of seventy-five people from Medina not only acceptedthe faith of Islam, but also invited Muhammad to their city and pledgedan allegiance to defend their prophet as they would their own kin.

19

THE HIJRA (FLIGHT)

Shortly after this welcoming invitation Muhammad ordered his fol-lowers to make their way to Medina, a city about two hundred milesnorth of Mecca. The Muslims slipped away in small groups and about 150of them emigrated. When the Meccan leaders were informed about theMuslim migration they plotted to kill Muhammad before he could leavethe city to join his followers in Medina. But on the night of the plannedassassination, the prophet and his close companion, Abu Bakr, success-fully escaped from the city by taking the unfrequented routes to Medinaand reached that city safely on September 24, A.D . 622.

This journey was a monumental turning point in the development ofIslam. As the Shorter Encyclopedia of /slam points out, "The migration ofthe Prophet . . . has been with justice taken by the Muslims as the starting-point of their chronology, for it forms the first stage in a movement whichin a short time became of significance in the history of the world." 20

Quite unlike the Meccans, Muhammad was well received in Medina.Medina was different from Mecca on several accounts. From a religiousperspective the residents of Medina were more inclined toward mono-theism, due to the strong cultural influence of several well-establishedJewish tribes in the area. It is also reported in Islamic tradition that thenatives of Medina had heard from the Jews that a prophet was soon toappear in the region. The Medinans, therefore, were eager to acceptMuhammad as the prophet who was to come and claim him for theirown.

Social factors also played an important role in Muhammad's accept-ance in Medina. It was a prosperous agricultural city; however, it wasbeing dragged into a series of bloody feuds among its leading tribes.Therefore, "in inviting Muhammad to Medina, many of the Arabs thereprobably hoped that he would act as an arbiter among the opposingparties,"21 and so bring back a period of peace and stability to the city.

Muhammad's ingenuity is clearly evident in this rapid progression ofcircumstances. Whereas in Mecca he was for the most part a purely reli-gious figure, in Medina he immediately became an able diplomat and

19. These are known as the two pledges of Al-Aqaba.20. H. A. R. Gibb and J. H. Kramers, eds., Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, (Ithaca: Cornell

University Press, 1953), 397.21. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., 22:3.

Muhammad 77

politician. Now he could not only exhort his audience by Qur'anic reve-lations, but also enforce his ideals through his newly gained politicalpowers.

Muhammad's primary task consisted of consolidating the variousArab clans, the two Muslim parties of Muhajirun (the Meccan Muslimswho emigrated with Muhammad), Ansar (the native Medinans who hadembraced Islam), and even the influential Jewish tribes into one unifiedfront. He was remarkably successful in unifying the various factions bydrawing a new constitution for the city of Medina, by which every groupwas obligated to coexist peacefully and support each other against for-eign attacks. Also in this legal document Muhammad was acknowledgedas the prophet, with the final authority to settle civil disputes.

Muhammad's success was somewhat offset by his failure to win thesupport of the three Jewish clans. At first it seems that the prophet madesome important concessions in order to find favor with the Jews. Forexample, in conformity with Jewish custom, he prescribed that his disci-ples turn in the direction of Jerusalem when praying, and adoptedAshura, the Jewish day of atonement, as a festival. Also, the introductionof the midday prayer at this time probably had its basis in Judaism. How-ever, the Jews rejected Muhammad's message and his claim to prophet-hood, mainly due to the discrepancies between the Qur'anic revelationsand their own sacred Scriptures.

Eventually Muhammad changed his policy toward the Jews. Healtered the prayer direction from Jerusalem to the shrine of Mecca withthe support of a Qur'anic revelation (2:142) and changed the time of fast-ing from the feast of Ashura to the whole month of Ramadan (the ninthlunar month in the Arabic calendar). The Qur'anic pronouncements alsobecame more severe in their criticisms of the Jews (cf. 9:29; 98:6). It wasat this time that the Qur'anic emphasis on Abraham as a central figure inthe history of Islam became noticeable (cf. 4:125; 3:89; 6:89). This standsin contradistinction to Judaism's focus on Moses and Christianity'semphasis on Jesus. It also manifests a shift in Islamic theology toward amore Arabian character.

22

In addition to the important task of tribal unification, another seriouschallenge that Muhammad faced was finding some means of livelihoodfor the Meccan believers who had sacrificially left their city and belong-ings to follow their prophet to Medina. A few of the emigrants were ableto carry on trade in the markets and some performed common labor. Butthe majority of them soon became involved, with Muhammad's sanc-tion, in raiding the commercial Meccan caravans. The prophet himselfled three such raids in the first year. Doubtless the purpose of these

22. See Andrae, 137-39.


attacks was not only to obtain financial reward, but also to impress theMeccans with the growing power of the Muslim force.

The Qur'an also endorsed Muhammad's new policy by granting per-mission "[to fight] , because They are wronged.... [They are] those whohave Been expelled from their homes In defiance of right,—(For nocause) except That they say, 'Our Lord Is God- (22:39-40). A later revela-tion commands, "Then fight in the cause Of God, and know that GodHeareth and knoweth all things" (2:244). And it seems that because of theunwillingness of some believers to fight, the Qur'an introduced somenew incentives to those who do (as opposed to "those who sit at homeand receive no hurt") such as "special rewards" and entrance to Paradise(cf. 4:95-96; 3:194-95).

23

For various reasons all the Muslim raids that happened within the firsteighteen months failed to procure any booty, and there was hardly anycontact between the two parties. The first actual fighting between theMuslims and the pagan Quraysh occurred in January 624 when a smallband of Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan, killed one of its attend-ants, captured two, and safely brought back the plunder to Medina. Thisaction caused a great uproar since it was believed that the Muslims, byMuhammad's instructions, had shed blood during the sacred month ofRajab. The pagan Arabs believed that four of the months of the year weresacred—an idea that is also sanctioned by the Qur 'an (9:36).

Muhammad was at first hesitant to divide up the booty among his fol-lowers, but eventually a Qur'anic revelation ended the prophet's doubt:

Fighting is prescribed For you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible That yedislike a thing Which is good for you ... But God knoweth, And ye knownot. They ask thee Concerning fighting In the Prohibited Month. Say:"Fighting therein is a grave (offence); But graver is it In the sight of God Toprevent access To the path of God, To deny Him, To prevent access To theSacred Mosque, And drive out its members." Tumult and oppression Areworse than slaughter (2:216-17).

THE BATTLE OF BADR

The prospect of gaining more booty from the enemy boosted the Mus-lim morale so that "for his next expedition Muhammad was able to col-lect 300 men, at least a hundred more than on any previous occasion."

24

Muhammad himself led this campaign after receiving a report that alarge caravan, which had all the Meccan merchants concerned for its safe

23. For further discussion of Jihad (Holy War ) see Chapter 8 and Appendix 5.24. W . Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 10.

79

return and was later said to be worth fifty thousand dinars, was headingback to Mecca.

The man in charge of the caravan was the great Meccan leader, AbuSufyan. Having realized the danger that lay ahead for his merchandise, hesent a timely request to Mecca for backup troops. The Meccans respondedimmediately and sent an army of about 950 fighting men to confront theMuslim attack. From the size of the force we can assume that the Mec-cans were thinking of so intimidating Muhammad that he would put anend to his raiding of caravans in the future.

In March 624, in a place called Badr, the two forces met. The Muslimswere outnumbered three to one. Because of Muhammad's superior militarystrategy and his followers' zeal in fighting for the cause of Islam, however, heoverpowered the overconfident Meccan leadership; the Muslim army dealta serious blow to their enemies. Over the course of the battle about forty-fivemen were killed, including some of the leading men of Mecca and seventywere taken prisoner; the Muslims lost only fourteen people.

Muhammad interpreted the victory at Badr as a definite sign of God'svindication of his prophethood (just as God had marvelously deliveredprophets before him in vindication of their message). The prophet wasinformed that his triumph was "a day of decision" and that it was Godhimself and his angels who had fought on the Muslims' side. "It is not yewho Slew them; it was God" (8:17). And the believers were inspired by theverse, "0 Apostle! rouse the Believers To the fight. If there are Twentyamongst you ... They will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, They willvanquish a thousand Of the unbelievers" (8:65).

Immediately following Badr, Muhammad's prestige greatly increased.Relying on his newly elevated status, Muhammad launched the system-atic elimination of his opponents in Medina, which in Muhammad'smind had always posed a real threat to the stability of the Islamic com-munity. This extermination involved the assassination of some poetswho had satirized the prophet in verse, and also the expulsion of one ofthe three Jewish tribes from Medina 2 5 During this period Muhammadbegan the long series of multiple marriages that further strengthened hisposition as the head of the community.26

THE BATTLE OF UHUD

The Meccans were well aware of their humiliating defeat, and onceagain under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, prepared themselves foranother confrontation with the Muslim forces. Exactly one year after Badr,the two armies met again in the vicinity of Medina, near the mountain of

25. See Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 14-16; and Haykal, 243-44.26. For a list of Muhammad's wives, see Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 393-99.


Uhud. Muhammad's supporters were outnumbered three to one, with theMeccans having three thousand men against one thousand Muslims.

Despite the numerical superiority of the Meccans, at first the battlewent in favor of the Muslims and the Quraysh began to flee. However, thetides were quickly turned when the Muslim archers abandoned theirpositions, against Muhammad's expressed orders, and rushed forward toshare in the plunder. The Meccan cavalry took advantage of this oppor-tunity to attack the Muslims from the rear. Muslims started to run in alldirections. Further confusion was created when the false rumor spread inthe camp that the enemy had killed the prophet. But Muhammad and thebulk of his force eventually withdrew to a secure position, and the Mec-cans, rejoicing in their victory, set out for home.

Muhammad's defeat struck a psychological blow to his prestige inthe region. The "hypocrites" (munafeqoon), Muhammad's opponents inMedina, along with the Jewish antagonists made no secret of their delightat Muhammad's misfortunes. Several Muslim parties were ambushedand killed by Muhammad's enemies, and in one case a bedouin tribeeven dared to defy the prophet's authority by massacring forty Muslimmissionaries.

Despite these setbacks Muhammad continued his efforts to strengthenhis position. He led or authorized more attacks on the neighboring tribes"which seems to have aimed at extending his own alliances and at pre-venting others from joining the Meccans."27 Also, barely one year afterdefeat at Uhud, Muhammad expelled the second Jewish tribe fromMedina and confiscated all their properties. The plunder left for the Mus-li ms was so much that Haykal, in his biography of Muhammad, writes,"this prize was greater than anything the Muslims had so far seized."28

THE SIEGE OF MEDINAAfter their victory in Uhud, the Meccans realized that they needed to

crush Muhammad's growing power once and for all. In the spring ofA.D.

627 Abu Sufyan led a great Arab confederacy of ten thousand men againstthe Muslims of Medina. This time Muhammad decided to harvest thecrop and remain within the city, and—as a tradition states—based uponthe advice of a Persian disciple, the Muslims dug a ditch in front of theunprotected parts of their city. The Meccans surrounded Medina forabout two weeks. But after several failures to cross the trench, the breakup of their coalition by Muhammad's secret negotiations with varioustribes, and unfavorable weather conditions, the besiegers lost theirdetermination and began to withdraw.

27. /1w New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., 22:4.28. See Haykal, 278.

Muhammad's position was greatly strengthened after this silent vic-tory. Shortly after the siege, Muhammad attacked the last Jewish tribe ofMedina based on the suspicion that they had plotted with the Meccanenemies against Muslims. Unlike the previous two Jewish tribes that hadbeen simply expelled from the city, this time all the men of the tribe wereput to death and the women and children were sold into slavery. Regard-ing this merciless verdict, Tor Andrae writes:

One must see Mohammad's cruelty toward the Jews against the back-ground of the fact that their scorn and rejection was the greatest disap-pointment of his life, and for a time they threatened completely to destroyhis prophetic authority. For him, therefore, it was a fixed axiom that theJews were the sworn enemies of Allah and His revelation. Any mercytoward them was out of the question. 29

THE CONQUEST OF MECCA

Muhammad's power for the next two years was quickly on the rise.The prophet led many more successful campaigns that brought aboutgreater financial benefits to his community. Consequently, more peoplewere steadily joining the fold ofIslam.30

Meanwhile the military and economic strength of Mecca was in rapiddecline. Furthermore, several of their leading men had defected andjoined Muhammad 's ranks. In March 628 the Meccans made a peacetreaty (the treaty of Hudaybiah) with Muhammad that clearly indicatedthey could no longer think of Muhammad as a rebellious fugitive but asan opponent of equal rank.

Over a year after the peace treaty, an attack of Meccan allies onMuhammad's allies caused the treaty to be nullified. Taking full advan-tage of this breach of the covenant, in January 630 Muhammad with anarmy of ten thousand men invaded his beloved city of Mecca with vir-tually no resistance. He immediately cleansed the Kaabah of its idolsand, with only a few exceptions, promised a general pardon to all theleaders of Mecca and even gave each one of the prominent Meccans,including Abu Sufyan, generous gifts and rewards for their surrender.Thus he not only conquered his long-time enemies but also won theirrespect and admiration. As Andrae claims, "it is rarely that a victor hasexploited his victory with greater self-restraint and forbearance thandid Mohammed."

31

29. See Andrae, 155-56.30. Some critics say that this was because the religious attraction of Islam was appar-

ently supplemented by material motives." See The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 4.31. See Andrae, 166.


MUHAMMAD 'S FINAL YEARS

After Mecca surrendered to Muhammad, a large number of tribes in theArabian peninsula followed suit and professed their allegiance to theprophet; others submitted after being defeated by the Muslim armies. As ageneral rule, the heathen tribes were obligated to denounce paganism andprofess Islam, whereas Christians and Jews could practice their own faithbut had to pay tributes and taxes. It is certainly one of Muhammad's great-est accomplishments that he was able to incorporate all the many Arabtribes into one unified and powerful nation under the banner of Islam.

In March 632 Muhammad personally led the Islamic pilgrimage toMecca and delivered his farewell address to tens of thousands of his fol-lowers. Three months later in June 632, at the age of sixty-three, theprophet of Islam died a sudden but natural death.

MUHAMMAD 'S PLACE IN ISLAM

So far we have looked at Muhammad from a purely historical perspec-tive. However, like all other religious personalities, there is another sig-nificant aspect to the prophet of Islam: the crucial place he holds in thelives and faith of millions of his dedicated followers worldwide. We willdevote the latter part of this chapter to examining Muhammad's greatimpact in shaping Islamic culture and theology.

MUHAMMAD 'S IMPACT ON ISLAMIC CULTURE

" Muslims will allow attacks on Allah: there are atheists and atheisticpublications, and rationalistic societies; but to disparage Muhammadwill provoke from even the most `liberal' sections of the community afanaticism of blazing vehemence." 32 Wilfred Cantwell Smith's insightfulanalysis of the deep and widespread veneration that exists in Muslimsociety for their prophet is as true today as when he wrote it in 1946.

From the judgment of Ibn Taymiyya (the fourteenth-century Muslimtheologian claiming that anyone defaming the prophet must be executedwithout any possibility for repentance) 33 to Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa(a religious/legal judgment) for the extermination of the British authorSalmon Rushdie, we see a vivid illustration of the Muslim world's fanati-cal love for Muhammad. In two powerful images, lqbal , the greatesttwentieth-century Muslim thinker of India (d. 1938), summed up the

32. Wilfred Cantwell Smith cited by Annemarie Schimmel, "The Prophet Muhammadas a Centre of Muslim Life and Thought," in Schimmel and Falaturi, 35.

33. Ibn Taymiyya, A Muslim Theologian's Response to Christianity, ed. and trans. Tho-mas F. Michel (Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1984), 70. It is ironic that Ibn Taymiyya him-self received heavy punishment for his alleged lack of veneration for the prophet when hespoke against certain popular un-Qur'anic exaggerations.

Muhammad 83

feeling of millions of Muslims in this way: "Love of the Prophet runs likeblood in the veins of his community." And "You can deny God, but youcannot deny the Prophet!"34

The adoration for the prophet became a fundamental factor not onlyin Islamic art and literature, but also in shaping the many details of Mus-lim life and civilization soon after Muhammad's death. Encouraged bythe Qur'anic injunction found in 33:21, "Ye have indeed In the Apostle ofGod A beautiful pattern (of conduct) For any one whose hope is In Godand the Final Day " (also 4:80; 7:157; 14:44). The reports of Muhammad 'ssayings (hadith) and actions (sunnah) were tirelessly collected by subse-quent generations. Even though these hadiths were never regarded asequal to the Qur'an, they were viewed as an uninspired record of inspiredwords and actions. Eventually Muslim theologians of the second andthird centuries of the Islamic era, after much examination of the texts(matn ) of these hadiths and their chains of narrators (isnads), put it in thebook forms that we have today. 35

While among all Muslims the Qur'an is the only sacred and inspiredbook, nevertheless, the hadiths of the prophet are also foundationalbecause of all the minute details that they provide regarding almostevery aspect of Muslim life and practice. Ajijola writes, "(Muhammad's)life became a source of inspiration to his followers. Even minute actsand deeds of him have been recorded by his companions and contem-poraries for the benefit of mankind. "36 The Muslim author, Kateregga,writes:

The Hadith is not a Holy Book (revelation) as the Qur'an and the previousScriptures. However, to the Muslims the importance of Hadith ranks onlysecond to the Holy Qur'an. The Hadith is complementary to the Qur'an. Ithelps to explain and clarify the Holy Qur'an and to present the Qur'an in amore practical form. . . . As Muslims, our knowledge of Islam would beincomplete and shaky if we did not study and follow the Hadith. Similarlyan outsider cannot understand Islam if he ignores theHadith.37

The greatest Muslim theologian of all time, Al-Ghazali (d. A.D. 1111), inhis classical Ihya ulum ad-din (Revival of Religious Sciences), explainedthe importance of observing the prophet's tradition in this way:

34.See Schimmel, 239, 256.35. In Sunni Islam, there are six canonical collections of hadith with the two most re-

vered ones being that of Sahih of al-Bukhari, and Sahih of al-Muslim. For a brief and con-cise discussion on hadith literature, see Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10-12.

36.Ajijola, 217.37.See Kateregga and Shenk, 31.


Know that the key to happiness is to follow the sunna [ Muhammad'sactions] and to imitate the Messenger of God in all his coming and going,his movement and rest, in his way of eating, his attitude, his sleep and histalk.... God has said: "What the messenger has brought—accept it, andwhat he has prohibited—refrain from it!" (59:7). That means, you have to sitwhile putting on trousers, and to stand when winding a turban, and tobegin with the right foot when putting on shoes. 38

An interesting example of Muslim piety in following the prophetic tra-dition is found in Sayyid Ahmad Khan, the nineteenth-century Indianreformer, who emphatically believed that it was better not to eat man-goes since the prophet had never touched this favorite fruit of India. Alsoit is said that the great mystic Bayezid Bistami did not eat watermelonsfor sixty years because he could not establish how Muhammad wouldhave cut melons!

39

Of course these are radical examples of emulating the prophet's life-style. Even though the majority of pious Muslims do not go to suchextremes, they do try their best to follow Muhammad's example in manydetails of their daily living. Schimmel, a prominent scholar on Islam atHarvard University, observes the influence of prophetic tradition on uni-fying the Islamic culture:

It is this ideal of the imitatio Muhammadi [i mitation of Muhammad] thathas provided Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia with such a uniformityof action: wherever one may be, one knows how to behave when enteringa house, which formulas of greeting to employ, what to avoid in good com-pany, how to eat, and how to travel. For centuries Muslim children havebeen brought up in these ways. 40

The prophetic tradition has not only greatly influenced every detail ofthe life of the individual believer, but it has also been the foundation ofIslamic law and social government. Islamic law, or shari'a, is based on theQur'an, the hadith, ijma' (the consensus of the community), and qiyas,the application of analogical reasoning to the other three sources for thededuction of new rules. There are four established systematized schoolsof law in Sunni Islam, "so that today most Sunni Muslims will be foundfollowing the madhab (system) of one of these four, ordering their reli-gious and community life according to the prescriptions worked out bythe jurists of one of these schools. "41

38. See Schimmel, 31.39. Ibid., 44.40. Ibid., 55.41. See Jeffery, xiii. See also Goldziher, "Development of Law" in Introduction to Islamic

Theology and Law.

Muhammad 85

n order to avoid stereotyping the Muslim world, it is necessary to notehere that even though Islamic sunna and shari'a (Islamic civil law) play afundamental role n the cultures of Muslim countries, much of the tradi-tional and religious mores have been broken down in the past centurydue to the massive influence of Western culture on these lands. Forexample, in many instances reformist groups within Islam are rejecting astrict reliance on prophetic hadith. Also, one can find a great deal ofnominal Muslims in Islamic countries whose lifestyles are not in accor-dance with guidelines set by the Qur'an and the prophet. The same canbe said of governmental laws that in many ways follow the more demo-cratic and Western patterns of government as opposed to the strict obe-dience of Islamic shari'a.

42

MUHAMMAD 'S PLACE IN ISLAMIC THEOLOGY

Muslims' great respect for Muhammad notwithstanding, it is veryimportant to point out that standard Islamic theology in no way consid-ers him divine. As Schimmel accurately warns, "Neither in theologicalnor in phenomenological terms can Muhammad be likened to the Christof Christianity—hence the Muslims' aversion to the term `Muhammad-ans,' which seems to them to imply a false parallel to the concept of'Christians. "'43 As the second part of Islamic confession makes clear,Muhammad is only the prophet of God.

However, having said this we need to point out that there are diverse,and sometimes contradictory, attitudes held by various Muslim groupsregarding the importance of the person of Muhammad. These attitudesrange from considering him as merely an upright human being whobecame the recipient of divine revelation, to a semidivine and almosteternal being.

According to the Qur'anic evidence and orthodox Islam, Muhammadwas only a human being whom God chose to be the final messenger tohumankind, and who was used as a means to introduce the purest andthe most perfect religion of Islam to the world. "Every previous prophetof God was sent to a particular people, but Muhammad was sent to allhuman beings of the world until Doomsday."44 In 6:50 we read, "Say: 'Itell you not That with me Are the Treasures of God, Nor do I know Whatis hidden, Nor do I tell you I am An angel. I but follow What is revealed to

42. Schimmel's analysis of the current situation in the Middle East is that "awareness ofthe danger that now confronts Islamic tradition has certainly contributed to the suddengrowth of Muslim fundamentalism that came as such a surprise to the unprepared Westernworld" (55).

43. Ibid., 24.44. Muhammad Abul Quasem, Salvation of the Soul and Islamic Devotions (London:

Kegan Paul International, 1983), 32.


me!'" Muhammad was told that "if it were Our Will, We could take awayThat which We have Sent thee by inspiration: Then wouldst thou findNone to plead thy affair In that matter as against Us" (17:86). And in 29:50we read Muhammad's clear admission that "I am Indeed a clear Warner."n accordance with the above Qur'anic statements, Abdalati, an orthodoxMuslim author, writes:

The Muslims worship God alone. Muhammad was only a mortal beingcommissioned by God to teach the word of God and lead an exemplary life.He stands in history as the best model for man in piety and perfection. Heis a living proof of what man can be and of what he can accomplish in therealm of excellence and virtue. Moreover, the Muslims do not believe thatIslam was founded by Muhammad, although it was restored by him in thelast stage of religious evolution. 45

Admitting Muhammad is only human is no embarrassment for ortho-dox Islam because of its strict monotheism (see Chapters 1 and 2). But aswe mentioned earlier, according to orthodox Islam, prophethood is theheight of God's activity in the world, and since with Muhammad Godclosed the office of prophethood this was the greatest honor that Godcould bestow on a human being. For Muslims, therefore, Muhammad isthe last and the greatest of all prophets (khatam al-anbiya). In a well-known hadith Muhammad's greatness is stated this way:

I have been granted excellence over the other prophets in six things: theearth has been made a mosque for me, with its soil declared pure; booty hasbeen made lawful for me; I have been given victory through the inspiring ofawe at the distance of a month's journey; I have been given permission tointercede; I have been sent to all mankind; and the prophets have beensealed with me. 46

A popular Muslim classic by Kamal ud Din ad Damiri gives us the fol-lowing description of the beloved prophet:

Mohammed is the most favored of mankind, the most honored of all apos-tles, the prophet of mercy, the head or Imam of the faithful, the bearer ofbanner of praise, the intercessor, the holder of high position, the possessorof the River of Paradise, under whose banner the sons of Adam will be onthe Day of Judgment. He is the best of prophets, and his nation is the bestof nations . . . and his creed is the noblest of all creeds. He performed man-ifest miracles, and possessed great qualities. He was perfect in intellect,and was of noble origin. He had an absolutely graceful form, complete gen-

45.Abdalati, 8.46. See Schimmel, 62.

Muhammad 87

erosity, perfect bravery, excessive humility, useful knowledge ... perfectfear of God and sublime piety. He was the most eloquent and the most per-fect of mankind in every variety of perfection. 47

Traditionally Islamic apologetics have provided several lines of rea-soning for proving the superiority of Muhammad over previous prophets."The chief of these proofs," according to the book Mizan 'ul Haqq, are:

(1) That the Old Testament and the New both contain clear prophe-cies about him.

(2) That the language and the teaching of the Qur'an are without par-allel, and thus the Qur'an alone is a sufficient proof of the truth ofMuhammad's claims.

(3) That Muhammad's miracle(s) is (are) a seal set by God Most Highon his claims.

(4) That his life and character prove him to have been the last and thegreatest of prophets.

(5) That the rapid spread of Islam shows that God Most High sent it ashis final revelation to men.48

Contemporary defenders of Islam offer variations on the above classicalthemes, but generally speaking these are still the five major argumentsin support of Muhammad. (For further discussion of this topic, seeChapter 8.)

Besides the orthodox understanding of Muhammad's role as merely amessenger, though the greatest of all prophets, popular Islam soondeveloped other beliefs about its prophet that went beyond the Qur'anicboundaries. One important deviation was the belief in Muhammad as anintercessor for his community before God.

The Qur'an rejects the possibility of intercession on the Day of Judg-ment (2:48, 254). But in 2:255, it is stated that no one can intercede withGod "except As He (God) permitteth." Therefore, many Muslims under-stood that this special permission for intercession (shafa'ah) was cer-tainly granted to Muhammad whom the Qur'an had called a mercy tohumankind.

In addition to this possible interpretation of the Qur'an, many hadithswere also produced in early Islam in support of this doctrine. One popu-lar tradition describes the last day in which all humankind goes from one

47. Joseph Gudel, To Every Muslim An Answer (Thesis, Simon Greenleaf School of Law,1982), 72.

48. C. G. Pfander, The Mizanu'l Haqq (Balance of Truth) (Villach, Austria: Light of life,1986), 225-26.


prophet to the next to ask for intercession. All prophets from Adam toJesus refuse to accept this role because of their unworthiness. But even-tually Muhammad accepts the role as intercessor, for he can successfullylead his community into Paradise.

Thousands of beautiful Islamic poems and moving prayers speak ofthe Muslims' hope for Muhammad's intercession for their salvation. Forexample, Ibn Khaldun, the great North African philosopher, asked theprophet Muhammad, "Grant me by your intercession, for which I hope,a beautiful page instead of my ugly sins!" Another Muslim thinkerexhorted his hearers by these words: "If a man brings on the Day of Res-urrection as many good works as those of all the people in the world anddoes not bring with them the calling down of blessing on the Prophet, hisgood works are returned to him, unacceptable." The Muslim poet Tilim-sani invoked Muhammad thus: "I have sins, abundant—but perhapsyour intercession may save me from Hellfire." And the greatest lyricalpoet of Urdu, Mir Taqi Mir, writes, "Why do you worry, 0 Mir, thinking ofyour black book? The person of the Seal of the Prophets is a guarantee foryour salvation! "49

Closely related to the Muslims' hope for Muhammad's intercessionand blessing is the universal Islamic formula of blessing the prophet,"God bless him and give him peace." (The Shi'ite version also asks forblessing on Muhammad's family.) This practice finds its basis in theQur'an itself, which claims, "God and His Angels Send blessings on theProphet: 0 ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, And salute him Withall respect" (33:56). Also, several hadiths explain the advantages of oftenrepeating this blessing on Muhammad. One hadith promises that forevery blessing called on the prophet, God will return that blessing tentimes. Another hadith encourages believers to bless the prophet often onFridays since the greetings are put before him on that day.50

Another popular tendency among some Muslims, which is of coursecondemned by orthodox Islam, is the veneration of Muhammad to theextent of almost deifying him. Once again there is an abundance ofalleged hadiths that support this position. One hadith speaks of Muham-mad's preexistence, and another states that he was the purpose of God'screation of the universe. "I was prophet when Adam was still betweenclay and water." "Had it not been for thee I (God) had not created theworld." 51 One popular hadith among the Iranian Muslims has God say-ing, "I am an Ahmad without 'm'." Ahmad is another name for Muham-mad. If the letter ' in ' is omitted from the word it becomes Ahad (one),

49. See Schimmel, 88, 96.50. Ibid., 92-93.51. See Gudel, 73.

which is another name for God. This hadith is supposed to show theinsignificant difference that exists between God and the person ofMuhammad.

This process of Muhammad's dehumanization took an additional turnin the popular doctrine of Nur-i-Muhammadi, or the Light of Muham-mad. According to many Islamic books of tradition God first created thelight of Muhammad and from that light he later proceeded to make therest of creation. 52 So Muhammad was not only the goal and reason for allcreation but also the material cause of creation. It is also this light ofMuhammad that each prophet was able to manifest to a certain degree. 53

One further step in exalting the Prophet was to also find him ninety-nine most noble names. Nazir-Ali, a perceptive scholar on Islam, writesthat a certain popular devotional book "contains a list of 201 names ofMuhammad (as against ninety-nine for God!). Many of the names areidentical to certain divine names.... Moreover names of God are givenjust before the names of the Prophet, almost to encourage compari-son!" 54 Schimmel writes that quite early in Islam even the ninety-ninenames for the prophet seemed insufficient; "soon two hundred nameswere enumerated, later even a thousand. Popular belief even holds thatthe Prophet is called a special name by each type of creature."

55

Concerning Muhammad's position in popular Islam, Nazir-Ali observes:

The extent of this veneration in modern Pakistani society is astonishing.The society nominally adheres to Sunni orthodoxy. But Muhammad-ven-eration is projected through the mass media, school books and culturalevents all ofwhich contribute to the deification of the Arabian Prophet. Thefollowing examples illustrate this point: "Though my link with the DivinityofGod be severed, May my hand never let go of the hem of the Chosen One(i.e. Muhammad)."

This is a quotation from a poem being taught in some Muslim schools.Since Relationship with the transcendent God is seen to be distant, it isonly through Muhammad that one even dares to approach his throne. InQawwalis (a popular cultural event), Muhammad is praised in verse.This often takes the form of deification: "If Muhammad had not been,God himself would not have existed!" This is an allusion to the close rela-tionship Muhammad is supposed to have with God. In the media,

52. Abdul-Haqq, 128-29.53. See Dashti, 62-63.54. Nazir-Ali, 133.55. Schimmel, 111-12. For a list of the ninety-nine names, see Schimmel's appendix,

257-59.


Muhammad is often given titles like "Savior of the World" and "Lord ofthe Universe."

56

CONCLUSIONn conclusion it is important to point out that despite the un-Qur'anic

exalted position of Muhammad in popular Islamic piety, his position inIslamic theology is not comparable to the person of Christ in Christiantheology. The ultimate foundation of Islam is not the person of Muham-mad, but rather the Qur'an, the uncreated and eternal Word of God. AsSchimmel reminds us:

Even though Muhammad was elevated to luminous heights and reached aposition comparable, in certain ways, to that of Logos in Christian theol-ogy, yet even as the Perfect Man he remained abduhu, God's servant andHis creature—the most beloved of His creatures, to be sure ... the idea ofan incarnation in the Christian sense was and is absolutely impossible inthe Islamic tradition. . . . The axis of Islam is not the person of the Prophetbut rather the Word of God, as revealed through him and laid down in theKoran.

57

So in order to properly understand Islam, it is necessary to turn ourattention to the cornerstone of Islam, the Qur'an. This is the subject ofthe next chapter.

56. Nazir-Ali, 130-31.57. See Schimmel, 142.

5THE QUR 'AN

The Qur'an is the foundation of Islam.' No adequate knowledge ofIslam is possible without a basic understanding of the Qur'an. Althoughbelief in all divine Scriptures is a major Islamic doctrine, for Muslims theQur'an holds such an incomparable place among other revealed Scrip-tures that it demands separate treatment. First we will explore the histori-cal background, literary style, and some of the major themes of the Qur'an.Then we will focus on the significance of the Qur'an as divine revelation.

A SURVEY OF THE QUR 'AN

COMPILATION OF THE QUR ' AN

Muhammad did not write down his revelations but gave them orally.Shortly after Muhammad's death, it became necessary to collect all thescattered pieces and chapters of his revelations into one book for use inthe Muslim community. As long as the prophet was alive, he acted asGod's mouthpiece within the community and no urgent need was felt togather all his divine revelations into one collection. However, with thedeath of their prophet, Muslims were convinced that God's revelation tohumankind was finalized. As 5:4 puts it, "This day have I Perfected yourreligion For you, completed My favour upon you, And have chosen foryou Islam as your religion." So with the death of Muhammad, thedemand for collecting and compiling this final revelation in written formbecame a pressing concern.

The process of compiling the Qur'an is reported by Muslim historians.According to Islamic tradition different fragments of the Qur'an wererevealed to Muhammad verbatim by the angel Gabriel over a period of

1. For an excellent general introduction to the Qur'an, see W. Montgomery Watt, Bell'sintroduction to the Qur'an (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1970).

91


twenty-three years (25:32; 17:106). After each such occasion the prophetwould recite the words of revelation to those present (thus the word"Qur'an," which means reading or reciting). 2 Many of the devout believ-ers memorized these Qur'anic portions as they were revealed and usedthem for private meditation or public worship, especially the shorterMeccan suras. 3 Tradition also relates that Muhammad's scribes wrotethe revelations on "pieces of paper, stones, palm-leaves, shoulder-blades, ribs, and bits of leather."

About a year after Muhammad's death, especially in the battle ofYamamah (A.D. 633), 4 a great number of those who could recite theQur'an by memory (hafiz) were killed. Some of the companions ofMuhammad, mainly due to the promptings of Umar, who later becamethe second Caliph of Islam, ordered the collection of the Qur'an becauseof the fear that the knowledge of it might fade away. Zayd ibn Thabit, oneof Muhammad's most trusted secretaries, was appointed to this task.According to Zayd's testimony, "during the lifetime of the prophet theQur'an had all been written down, but it was not yet united in one placenor arranged in successive order."5 Zayd's own account is preserved forus in Sahih of Al-Bukhari:

Narrated Zid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the peopleof Yama-ma had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companionswho fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), 'Umar has come tome and said, "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (i.e.,those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama,and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurraon other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may he lost. There-fore I suggest you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said toUmar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?"Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project." 'Umar kept on urging me to

accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realisethe good in the idea which 'Umar had realised. Then Abu Bakr said (to me),You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you,

and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So youshould search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (inone book).' By Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains,it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the

2. Nazir-Ali, 124.3. Cf. Sura 73:1–7; and also see Yusuf Ali's Holy Qur'an, Intro. C.41.4. This was a major battle between the Muslim forces and the followers of a new self-

proclaimed Arabian prophet.5. This is related by Jalalu'd Din a's Suyuti , taken from Stanton, 10-11. See also Moham-

med Pickthall's intro to his English trans. of the Qur'an.

Qur'an.... So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (whatwas written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones and also from the menwho knew it by heart.6

Despite the above account from the most trusted traditionalist inIslam, Al Bukhari (d. 870), popular orthodox Muslim theory holds that theQur'an was arranged in the same form that we have today under Muham-mad's and Gabriel's direct supervision. 7

Some time later during the reign of Uthman, the third Muslim Caliph,Muslims were faced with another crisis regarding the Qur'an. It wasreported to Uthman that several Muslim communities were using differ-ent versions of the Qur'an and it was feared that this uncertainty as towhich Qur'anic reading was the correct one might subsequently lead togreat doctrinal confusion. According to the report of Bukhari this newsreached Uthman from Hudhaifa, general of the Muslim army in the cam-paign of Armenia, who had noticed such debates among his own troops.

Once again Zayd was called to head the new project of editing an offi-cial revised version of the Qur'an. After the production of the revised ver-sion, which followed the dialect of the Quraish, several copies of this newauthoritative Qur'an were sent to each major center of the Islamicempire and all the other copies of the Qur'an were recalled and burnedby the expressed order of the Caliph Uthman.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at thetime when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war toconquer Arminya and Adharbijan . Hudhaifa was afraid of their [the peopleof Sham and Iraq] differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to'Uthman, "0 the chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differabout the Book [Qur'an] as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uth-man sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of theQur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies andreturn the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman thenordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As, and'Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in per-fect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagreewith Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialectof Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, andwhen they had written many copies, ' Uthman returned the original manu-script to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of whatthey had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whetherwritten in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, beburnt.8

6. Al-Bukhari, vol. 6, 477-78.7. Kateregga and Shenk, 29-30; and Bucaille, 134.8. See Al–Bukhari, 478-79.


All Qur'anic scholars agree that the Uthmanic version of the Qur'anhas practically remained intact to the present day.

ARRANGEMENT OF THE QUR 'AN

The Qur'an is slightly shorter than the New Testament. It is dividedinto 114 chapters, called suras, of unequal length. Eighty-six of the chap-ters were revealed during the Meccan period and twenty-eight atMedina. Each chapter is divided into verses (ayat). The three shortestsuras have three verses each (103, 108, 110), while the second sura, whichis the longest, is divided into 286 verses. Each sura (with one exception)begins with a bismillah that is translated into English as "In the name ofGod, Most Gracious, Most Merciful." Each sura also contains a title thatis often derived from a word or a phrase within the chapter (such as, "TheCow," "Jonah," "The Fig," and "He Frowned"). However, in most casesthese titles do not indicate the theme of the whole chapter.

A somewhat unusual feature of the Qur ' an is that its suras are not placedin any chronological or logical order. Generally speaking the chapters arearranged according to length from larger to smaller—with the exception ofthe first one, which functions as a short introductory prayer. This has"resulted ... in an inversion of the chronological order, as the longestSuras, which are mainly the latest, come first, while the shortest and earli-est are placed last." 9 Most of the longer chapters have verses that comefrom the most varied periods of Muhammad's ministry, thus making thecomposite suras or sections of them even harder to date accurately. Onecritical Muslim scholar, Ali Dashti, claims that "Unfortunately the Qur'anwas badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged." 10 However,most conservative Muslims defend this arrangement.

)11

THE LITERARY STYLE OF THE QUR'AN

The Qur'an is written in the form of Arabic poetry and prose. TheShorter Encyclopedia of Islam contains the following description of theliterary form of the Qur'an:

The style is quite different in the earlier and later parts of the Kur'an,although it bears everywhere undeniably the stamp of the same individual.

9. Stanton, 15.10. Dashti, 28. Also see The New Encyclopaedia Britannica; and the footnote in Goldzi-

her, 28-30. Concerning this issue Arthur Jeffery makes the following insightful comment:"None of the longer Suras save Sura XII deals with any one subject consistently ... the ar-rangement is clearly haphazard, though some modern Muslim writers make fantastic at-tempts to show a purposeful arrangement of the material in the Suras." Jeffery, 47.

11. See Mahmud Ahmad, 368-71; Muslim World League Journal, Aug. 82, 13; and Kat-eregga and Shenk, 29.

The Qur'an 95

... In the earlier revelations one is carried away by the wild fancy and rhap-sodic presentation, sometimes also by a warmer feeling.... In the later sec-tions also higher flights are not lacking . . . but as a rule his imagination soon... gave place to passages of prose.... The Prophet now often indulges inrepetitions of long stories or psychological explanations, or polemics. 12

Another authority describes the Qur'anic style this way: "The shortestverses generally occur in the earliest surahs, in which the style ofMuhammad's revelation comes very close to the rhymed prose (saj) usedby the Kahins, or soothsayers, of his time." Furthermore, "as the versesget progressively longer and more circumstantial, the rhymes come far-ther and farther apart. There is also a change of linguistic style: the earliersurahs are characterized by short sentences, vivid expressions, andpoetic force; and the later ones become more and more detailed, compli-cated and, at times, rather prosaic in outlook and language."

13

Of course, for orthodox Muslims "the absolute perfection of thelanguage of the Kur'an is an impregnable dogma." 14 So any contrastbetween the literary quality of the earlier and later suras is a moot pointfor a Muslim who considers the Qur'an to be the ultimate proof of its owninspiration by reason of its unapproachable beauty in style from begin-ning to end (see Chapter 9).

Another important point regarding style is that "the Qur'an generallyappears as the speech of God, who mostly speaks in the first person plural( "We")." 15 And even "when the prophet Muhammad is speaking to hiscompatriots, his words are introduced by the command, 'Say,' thusemphasizing that he is speaking on divine injunction only. At times theform is also dramatic, bringing in objections by Muhammad's opponentsand answering them by counter arguments." 16 Predicated on this style ofdirect divine address, Muslims believe that the New Testament and muchof the Old Testament are thereby disqualified from being God's Word.

MAJOR QUR 'ANIC THEMES

We have already discussed some of the major themes of the Qur'an,such as God, man, sin, prophets, and divine Scriptures. We will touch onthe Islamic view of salvation in the next chapter. In this section, we willbriefly survey some of the major teachings of the Qur'an in chronological

12. Gibb and Kramers, 276; also see Goldziher, 11-12.13. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 6; also see Stanton, 13-14.14. See Gibb and Kramers, 276.15. Like the Bible (cf. Gen. 1:26), the use of "we" is regal, being reserved for royalty and

deity but is not a sign of plurality in God.16. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 6.


order, covering the twenty-three-year period during which the Qur'anwas revealed to Muhammad.

Western scholars have commonly classified the Qur'an according tofour stages: early, mid-, and late Meccan, and the Medinan period. Thisconstruction has been popular with Western scholars since the time ofNoldeke's History of the Qur'an (1860). 17 Here we will avoid the some-what technical differentiation between the mid- and late Meccan stageand will only touch on the prominent features of the earlier and laterMeccan and the Medinan periods.

THE MECCAN PERIOD

During the first period of Muhammad's ministry there is a "markedsimplicity of concept" in the earliest suras of the Qur 'an.19 Muhammadis primarily a "warner" (87:9). The initial revelations mainly consisted ofcalling men to moral reform in response to the fact that they are account-able before the Creator. They foretell the imminent day of judgment andgraphically describe the destiny of the lost in hell and the future of thesaved in Paradise.

Shortly after this, the oneness and transcendence of the true God andCreator become the prevailing theme, in the form of a "series of shortaddresses full of excited passion, glowing imagination and no little poeticpower." 19 According to an early Muslim tradition, Muhammad did notexplicitly attack the pagan gods of Mecca at the beginning of his ministry.An early authority, Al-Zuhri (d. A.D. 713), gives us the following account: 20

Secretly and publicly Allah's Apostle called men to Islam, and those whowere willing among the young men and the common people accepted thecall of Allah. . . . The unbelievers of Quraish tribe did not oppose what hesaid.... This they continued to do until Allah began to attack their godswhom they served beside Him, and until He proclaimed that their fatherswho died in unbelief were lost. Then they began to hate the Prophet andshow their enmity to him.

Muhammad faced strong rejection by the majority of the unbelievingMeccans that resulted in a new emphasis in the Qur'anic revelations.Gradually the suras get longer and more argumentative in tone. n ever-increasing detail the revelations expound on the proofs and evidences innature and human life for the existence and power of God.

17. See Gibb and Kramers; and Goldziher, 12 and footnote.18. Sir Norman Anderson, The World's Religions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 94.19. See Gibb and Kramers, 284.20. Andrae, 116; see also Gibb and Kramers, 284.

The Qur'an 97

It is also at this time that we are introduced to the long and repetitiousbiblical narratives of the Old and New Testament prophets. Since,according to the Qur'an, many Old Testament personalities functionedas God's prophets, Islamic scholars see in these prophetic stories a signif-icant psychological (and even doctrinal) element. Commenting on thenature of Muhammad's revelations, Schimmel writes:

In the middle period, during the times of crises and persecutions, theyoften spoke of the suffering and afflictions that were showed upon earlierprophets who, like Muhammad, did not meet with any understandingamong their compatriots and were tried hard until God gave them victoryover their enemies. These revelations certainly helped Muhammad to con-tinue on his chosen path despite the growing hostility of the Meccans. 21

THE MEDINAN PERIOD

This chronological division of the Qur'an is the only one that is acceptedby all Muslims and in fact has been so since almost the very beginning ofIslam. In the Medinan suras not only the literary style but also the contentstands in great contrast to the Meccan period. n the person of Muham-mad there is a striking transition from a preacher to a prince. This causesno concern for the Muslim, who sees in this transformation the case forMuhammad's greatness in effectively adapting to different circumstances.

n Medina, Muhammad becomes the "beautiful model." He is to beobeyed along with God; he is sent as "a Mercy for all creatures," and Godand angelic beings call blessings on the prophet (33:21; 4:80; 21:107;33:56). With this change in Muhammad's role also came a change in theQur'anic revelation. The problems of Mecca were now past, and the newlyfound Islamic community needed new direction. Once again Schimmelwrites: "In Medina, Islam became institutionalized, and the contents ofthe Prophet's later revelations, correspondingly, often concern civic prob-lems and treat politically and socially relevant questions such as emergedfrom Muhammad's activity as a leader of political community."

22

The whole structure of Islamic ethics, law, and jurisprudence finds itsfoundation largely in the revelations of this period.23 An important fea-ture of the Medinan revelations is the final break with the Jewish andChristian faiths of his time. 24 The revelations gradually become moreforceful in their denouncements of Jews and Christians, and there is anobvious attempt to bring Islam more in line with its Arabian character. Asan example we can note the difference in Muhammad's treatment of

21. Schimmel, 16.22. Ibid.23. For a brief discussion of the Qur'anic law, see Stanton, 63-71.24. See Chapters 3 and 4 for further discussion on this point.


Abraham in the Meccan and Medinan revelations. In Mecca it was oftenclaimed that no prophet had been sent to Arabs before Muhammad.Abraham holds a prominent position among the prophets and he is calleda hanif (an original monotheist) in contrast to the polytheists. However,later in Medina we are to understand that Abraham lived in Mecca andfounded the sanctuary of Mecca with the help of his son Ishmael (theancestor of the Arabs). Now when Muhammad refers to Abraham as hanifit is in order to contrast him to the Jews and Christians. The religion ofAbraham (which predates Judaism and Christianity) is the pure and orig-inal religion that Muhammad is sent to restore and complete 25

It is in this connection that the important Qur'anic doctrine of abroga-tion (nasikh), which is closely connected to the Islamic concept of pro-gressive revelation, arises. As the Qur'an itself puts it: "None of Our reve-lations Do We abrogate Or cause to be forgotten, But We substituteSomething better or similar " (2:106; also see 16:101; 13:39). The Qur ' anicscholar, Arthur Jeffery, explains this doctrine in the following way:

The Qur'an is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine ofabrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abro-gate, i.e., declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The impor-tance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to theQur'anic science known as Nasikh wa Mansukh, i.e., "the Abrogators andthe Abrogated."26

The implications of this doctrine can be profound when we considerthe transition between the Meccan and the Medinan suras. The Muslimtheologian, lbn Salam, in his book Kitab an-Nasikh wa'l Mansukh,writes, "Abrogation in Allah's Book is of three kinds. One kind is whereboth text and prescription have been abrogated. Another is where thetext has been abrogated but the prescription remains. Yet another iswhere the prescription has been abrogated but the text remains."

27

Under the first category the author cites several instances taken fromthe traditions in which a Qur'anic text and its principle have beenremoved from the present-day Qur'an. n the second category we aretold about the verse about "stoning" as a punishment for adultery. It isclaimed that the text has been abrogated, but the prescription (againstadultery) stands. About the third category he writes, "Examples of wherethe prescription has been abrogated but the text remains are to be foundin sixty-three Suras. Instances are the saying of prayers facing toward theJerusalem shrine, the former fastings, letting the polytheists be, and

25. See Gibb and Kramers, 285.26. See Jeffery, 66.27. Ibid., 67.

turning from the ignorant. "28 As an explanation to these references Jef-fery notes, "The earlier practice of facing toward Jerusalem in prayer,mentioned n II, 143/138, was abrogated by the command in II, 144/139 if. to turn toward the sacred mosque in Mecca; the earlier practice offasting like the Jews in Muharram ten days of Ashura was abrogated bythe command to fast the whole thirty days of Ramadan (II, 183, 179 ff.);XLlll, 89, which orders that the polytheists be let alone, and Vll, 199/198,which bids the Prophet turn away from the ignorant, are both said to beabrogated by the Verse of the Sword (11, 191/187), which orders theirslaughter."29

The doctrine of abrogation has also worked the other way around,especially among the Sufis (see Appendix 1) and in some small progres-sive Islamic circles of modern times. Some have argued that it is in themessage of the Meccan period that "the primarily 'religious' quality ofIslam, the 'essence' which prior to the political/military order at Medina,is enshrined.

"30However, this view has not won any general acceptance

among orthodox Muslims.

THE QUR 'AN AS ISLAMIC SCRIPTUREAll that has been said so far serves simply as an introduction to the

most important fact about the Qur'an: its unique position in Islam. Nosignificant insight about the Qur'an is possible without an appreciationof the profound admiration that millions of faithful Muslims (beginningfrom the time of Muhammad himself) have had and continue to have fortheir holy book. Therefore, the remainder of this chapter is devoted to anexploration of the status of the Qur'an in Islam.

n an article entitled, "The Muslim Lives by the Qur'an," professorYusuf K. Ibish writes with penetrating insight about the status of theQur'an in Islam:

I have not yet come across a western man who understands what theQur'an is. It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to theBible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will.If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compareit with Christ Himself. Christ was the expression of the Divine among men,the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Qur'an is. If you want a

28.Ibid., 68.29.Ibid., emphasis ours.30.Kenneth Cragg, "Contemporary Trends in Islam," In Woodberry, 33-35. Cragg goes

on to say that such dichotomies between the Meccan and the Medinan messages "do notcommend themselv es to the generality of Muslims anywhere." Such views are nothingmore than marginal, with little chance of practical expression in the given temper of to-

day" (35).


comparison for the role of Muhammad, the better one in that particularrespect would be Mary. Muhammad was the vehicle of the Divine, as shewas the vehicle.... There are western orientalists who have devoted theirlife to the study of the Qur'an, its text, the analysis of its words, discoveringthat this word is Abyssinian, that word is Greek by origin. . . . But all this isimmaterial. The Qur'an was divinely inspired, then it was compiled, andwhat we have now is the expression of God's Will among men. That is theimportant point. 31

Another Muslim scholar, highly conversant with Western scholarship,agrees with the above point. n his Ideals and Realities of Islam, SeyyedHossein Nasr writes,

The Word of God in Islam is the Quran; in Christianity it is Christ.... Tocarry this analogy further one can point to the fact that the Quran, being theWord of God, therefore corresponds to Christ in Christianity and the form ofthis book, which like the content is determined by the dictum of heaven,corresponds in a sense to the body of Christ. The form of the Quran is theArabic language which religiously speaking is as inseparable from theQuran as the body of Christ is from Christ Himself. Arabic is sacred in thesense that it is an integral part of the Quranic revelation whose very soundsand utterances play a role in the ritual acts of lslam.

32

These comments provide a feeling for the majestic and incomparableplace of the Qur'an in Islam. Whereas in Christianity in the beginningwas the Word and the Word became flesh, in Islam in the beginning wasthe Word and the Word became a Book! It is therefore very important forus to know something of the relationship of this Book to Islamic theology.

Throughout the Qur'an we are constantly reminded that the Qur'an isnot a human (or even angelic) product, but is wholly from God himselfwho is revealing it to the prophet Muhammad: "Praise be to God, Whohath sent to His Servant The Book, and hath allowed Therein no Crook-edness" (18:1); "The revelation Of this Book Is from God, The Exalted inPower, Full of Wisdom. Verily it is We Who have Revealed the Book tothee n Truth" (39:1-2); "(God) Most Gracious! It is He Who has Taughtthe Qur ' an " (55:1-2; see also 3:7; 41:2-3; 12:1-2; 20:113; 25:6; 2:2-4; 43:43-44; 6:19; 39:41. For responses to the charge that the Qur'an has been pro-duced by a source other than God, see 26:210-11; 10:37).

We are also told that the Qur'an is not simply a revelation from Godbut a book that finds its origin in a heavenly "Mother of the Book": "Nay,

31.Waddy, 14.32. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ideals and Realities of Islam (London: George Allen & Unwin,

1975), 43-44.

The Qur'an 101

this is A Glorious Qur'an, (Inscribed) in A Tablet Preserved!" (85:21-22);"We have made it A Qur'an in Arabic, That ye may be able To understand(and learn wisdom). And verily, it is In the Mother of the Book, n OurPresence, high (In dignity), full of wisdom" (43:3-4; cf. 13:39).

Therefore, from the very beginning of Islam the Qur'an was consid-ered by all Muslims as the Word of God par excellence. The absoluteadmiration that Muhammad and his companions displayed for this bookis documented in many Islamic traditions. This reverence for the Qur'ancontinued to grow after Muhammad's death, reaching a point that "aftera hundred years a fierce controversy arose among the religious scholarson the question whether it (the Qur'an) was created or is, like God him-self, uncreated, i.e. not preceded by non-existence. This controversywent on for centuries."

33

Eventually, the orthodox schools defeated the position of the Mu'tazi-lites ("the Seceders"), a group of Muslim theologians who sought to com-bine Greek rationalism with Islamic thought, and strongly denied theeternality of the Qur'an. (This group, which was widely popular at onepoint, is no longer in existence; however, some of their influence—suchas the doctrine of the Qur'an's createdness—can be seen in the theologyof Shi'ite Islam). Three Muslim Caliphs even attempted to declare it aheresy for anyone to teach the idea that the Qur'an was created, and theCaliph Al-Mutawakkil (d. A.D. 850), went so far as to "decree the deathpenalty for anyone who taught that the Word of God is created."

34

Goldziher, one of the greatest European authorities on Islam, suc-cinctly explains this great Islamic controversy: "One of the weightiestsubjects of dogmatic debate was the concept of the divine word. How isone to understand the attribution of speech to God? How is one toexplain the operation of this attribute in the act of revelation embodiedin the holy scriptures?"

35

Although Muslim scholars realize that these kinds of questions belongin the context of the theory of God's attributes, they were treated as sepa-rate subjects of theological discussion. Orthodox Islam answers thesequestions by noting that speech is an eternal attribute of God, which iswithout beginning or intermission, exactly like his knowledge, might, andother characteristics of his infinite being. Consequently, revelation, whichis the acknowledged manifestation of God's speaking, did not originate intime by a specific act of God's creative will, but has existed from all eter-

33. Dashti, 147. Some scholars of Islam see in this controversy a direct influence of theChristian doctrine of Logos . See Abdul-Haqq, 62-63.

34. Williams, 179.35. See Goldziher, 97.


nity. So, according to orthodox Muslim doctrine, the Qur'an is the uncre-ated speech of God that has existed in the mind of God from eternity. 36

The great Sunni authority, Abu Hanifa , expressed the orthodox view-point as follows:

The Qur'an is the word of God, and is His inspired word and revelation. Itis a necessary attribute of God. It is not God, but still is inseparable fromGod. It is written in a volume, it is read in a language, it is remembered inthe heart, and its letters and its vowel points, and its writing are all created,for they are the works of men, but God's word is uncreated. Its words, itswriting, its letters, and its verses are for the necessities of man, for its mean-ing is arrived at by their use, but the word of God is fixed in the essence ofGod, and he who says that the word of God is created is an infidel. 37

So for Muslims the Qur'an is not simply regarded as their holy book,one among many other divine revelations. The Qur'an is the eternalWord of God that descended (tanzil) to Muhammad in order to be thefinal light and guidance for humankind. Even though some Muslimshave made certain pluralistic claims about the relationship of the Qur'anwith other Scriptures (see Chapter 3), according to orthodox Islam theQur'an by its very nature supersedes all previous revelations.

A DIVINE GUIDE FOR HUMANKIND

On many occasions the Qur'an refers to itself as a "Clear Argument"(al-Burhan), or "Light" (an-Nur), or "The Explanation" (al-Bayan). 38 nfact, after the first chapter of the Qur'an, which functions as an introduc-tory prayer, the second chapter starts with the verse, "This is the Book:Init is guidance sure, without doubt, To those who fear God" (2:2).

Similar to the position of Christ in the Christian faith as the climax andfinality of God's revelation to man, the Qur'an holds a similar role in theIslamic faith. As Abdul Ahad Dawud writes, "For after the Revelation ofthe Will and Word of Allah in the Holy Qur'an there is the end of theprophecy and of revelation." 39 However, before going any further weneed to mention one fundamental difference. Whereas in ChristianityChrist is believed to be the self-disclosure of God, in Islam the emphasis

36. Ibid.37. See Abdul-Haqq, 62. Also see Al-Maturidi's defense of the orthodox position against

the Mutazilites in Williams, 182. For a modern and somewhat mystical explanation of theeternality of the Qur'an, see Nasr, 53.

:38. Ajijola, 104.39. Gudel, 35-36; and Abdu'l-Ahad Dawud, Muhammad in the Bible (Kuala Lumpur:

Pustaka Antara, 1969).

The Qur'an 103

of the Qur'an is not on revealing God per se, but more important, on dis-closing the commands of God. As Kenneth Cragg observes,

The revelation communicated God's Law. It does not reveal GodHimself... the genius of Islam is finally law and not theology. In the last analysis thesense of God is a sense of Divine command. In the will of God there is noneof the mystery that surrounds His being. His demands are known and thebeliever's task is not so much exploratory, still less fellowship, but ratherobedience and allegiance.40

It is due to this Qur'anic emphasis, on revealing the will and com-mands of God regarding the many details of life, that the Muslims viewthe Qur'an as the ultimate and most suitable divine guidance for man.Ajijola writes, "The Qur'an is a comprehensive code of life covering everyaspect and phase of human life. This Book of God lays down the bestrules relating to social life, commerce and economics, marriage andinheritance, penal laws and international conduct, etc." 41

In addition to the many mundane laws of the Qur'an that serve as evi-dence for the practicality and ultimacy of divine guidance 42 the Qur'anis also considered the final revelation from God because of the belief thatit perfects and fulfills previous divine revelations. In 10:37, we read, "ThisQur'an ... is A confirmation of (revelations) That went before it, And afuller explanation Of the Book—wherein There is no doubt—From theLord of the Worlds." Kateregga expresses a basic Muslim convictionwhen he writes,

Therefore, the Qur'an, as the final revelation, is the perfection and culmi-nation of all the truth contained in the earlier Scriptures (revelation).Though sent in Arabic, it is the Book for all times and for all mankind. Thepurpose of the Qur'an is to guard the previous revelations by restoring theeternal truth of Allah. The Qur'an is the torch-light by which humanity canbe rightly guided onto the straight path.

43

Another contemporary Muslim writer, Abdalati, adds: "These Muslimshave good reasons to believe that their Book, the Glorious Qur'an, is theMaster Book of Revelation and the Standard of Religious Truth." Thus,"they also believe that Islam has come to reaffirm the Eternal Divine Mes-

40. Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, 55, 57. See Chapter 1 for further discussion of Islamictheology.

41. Ajijola, 90.42. Abdalati, 196-97.43. Kateregga and Shenk, 27.


sage and settle the past religious disputes so that man may embark uponcreative constructive activities in all walks of life."

44

This same Muslim attitude can be seen in somewhat harsher tones inthe writings of the classical orthodox theologian, lbn Taymiyya:

The guidance and true religion which is in the shari'a brought by Muham-mad is more perfect than what was in the two previous religious laws... .The law of the Torah, unlike that of the Qur'an, is lacking in completeness.... In the Torah, the Gospel, and the books of the prophets there are no use-ful forms of knowledge or upright deeds which are not found in the Qur'an,or else there is found that which is better. In the Qur'an there is found guid-ance and true religion in beneficial knowledge and upright deeds which arenot in the other two books.

45

Since for Islam the Qur'an is the divine revelation par excellence, it fol-lows logically that in the present age we must abandon all previous Scrip-tures and submit ourselves to the guidance of the Qur'an. "it is onaccount of these special features of the Qur'an that all the people of theworld have been directed to have faith in it, to give up all other books andto follow it alone, because it contains all that is essential for living inaccordance with God's pleasure."

46

In all these doctrinal discussions we should not lose sight of one fact:the belief that the Qur'an provides divine guidance for life is accepted notonly as an intellectual dogma, but as a daily and lifelong reality for faith-ful Muslims. Once again, Yusuf Ibish perceptively points out, "the Mus-lims live by the Qur'an. From the first rituals of birth to the principalevents of life and death, marriage, inheritance, business contracts: all arebased on the Qur'an." 47 In a similar style, Hossein Nasr writes, "not onlydo the teachings of the Qur'an direct the life of a Muslim, but what ismore the soul of a Muslim is like a mosaic made up of formulae of theQur'an in which he breathes and lives."48

Concerning the place of the Qur'an in the life of a faithful Muslim, AnisShorrosh contends that

The Quran is held in the greatest esteem and reverence among Muslimsas their holy scripture. They dare not touch it without first being washedand purified. They read it with the greatest care and respect, never hold-ing it below their waist. They swear by it and consult it on all occasions.

44.See Abdalati, xiii. Of course, some claim that this statement is not corroborated byhistorical facts, since Islam has not really settled past religious disputes.

45. lbn Taymiyya, 350-69.46.Ajijola, 96; cf. 94-96.47.See Waddy, 14.48. Nasr, 61.

The Qur'an 105

They carry it with them to war, write sentences of it on their banners, sus-pend it from their necks as charm, and always place it on the highest shelfor in some place of honor in their houses. It is said that the devil runsaway from the house in which a portion of the Quran ... (the secondsura), is read. 49

A DIVINE MIRACLE

Not only is the Qur'an the ultimate divine revelation, but for Muslims(including Muhammad himself), it is also the ultimate divine miracle.The "miracle of the Qur'an" is certainly the most fundamental and pop-ular doctrine about the Qur'an for the majority of Muslims, even morethan the doctrine of the eternality of the Qur'an.

It is an interesting fact that from almost the very beginning of his min-istry Muhammad claimed that the Qur'an was his only miracle. In 2:23,the prophet is commanded to say, "And if ye are in doubt As to what Wehave revealed From time to time to Our servant, Then produce a SuraLike thereunto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any)besides God, If your (doubts) are true " (cf. 10:38). In 17:88, there isanother bold challenge of the prophet to the unbelievers: "Say: 'If thewhole Of mankind and Jinn Were to gather together To produce the likeOf this Qur'an, they Could not produce The like thereof, even if Theybacked up each other With help and support.

This absolute confidence in the miraculousness of the Qur'an hasremained unshaken among Muslims to this day. In a sense this is thefoundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the prophethoodof Muhammad. Al-Baqillani, a classical theologian, in his book Ijaz al-

Qur'an (The Miracle of the Qur'an), writes: "What makes it necessary topay quite particular attention to that [branch of Qur 'anic] science

[known as] Ijaz al-Qur'an is that the prophetic office of the Prophet—upon whom be peace—is built upon this miracle."50 A contemporaryMuslim author, Faruqi, observes that "Muslims do not claim any mira-cles for Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad's prophet-hood is the sublime beauty and greatness of the revelation itself, the HolyQur'an, not any inexplicable breaches of natural law which confoundhuman reason."

51

49. Shorrosh, 21. Also see Jeffery, 58-66.50. See Jeffery, 54.51. Al-Faruqi, 20. Some scholars qualify Faruqi's statement, noting that many Muslims

believe (though without Qur'anic evidence) that Muhammad performed a multitude offantastic miracles involving inexplicable breaches of natural law. Haykal, the modem biog-rapher of Muhammad, also voices the same opinion: "Muhammad ... had only one irresis-table miracle—the Qur'an," xxvi.


THE MIRACULOUS NATURE OF THE QUR 'AN

Muslim apologists have offered many evidences for the divine originof the Qur'an. Most of them fit under one or more of the following argu-ments. (The arguments will he elaborated more fully later in Chapter 9.Here we will give only the general outline of each point.) The weight ofthese arguments varies from scholar to scholar. Generally speaking, how-ever, more weight is given to the first few, and the first one seems to begiven the most weight by the majority of Muslim apologists.

THE ARGUMENT FROM UNIQUE LITERARY STYLE

According to this argument the Qur'an "is wonderfully arranged, andmarvelously composed, and so exalted in its literary elegance as to bebeyond what any mere creature could attain." 52 By revelation Muhammadclaimed that "this Qur'an is not such As can be produced By other than God"(10:37). He boasts that "if the whole Of mankind and Jinn Were to gathertogether To produce the like Of this Qur'an, they Could not produce The likethereof, even if They backed up each other With help and support" (17:88).

It is the belief of all Muslims that "The Qur'an is the greatest wonderamong the wonders of the world. It repeatedly challenged the people ofthe world to bring a chapter like it, but they failed and the challengeremains unanswered up to this day." They believe that the Qur'an "is sec-ond to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of thelearned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundnessof laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind." 53 This, theycontend, is proof positive that the Qur'an is the very Word of God.

THE ARGUMENT FROM MUHAMMAD ' S ILLITERACY

This argument supports the former one. In fact, they form a unit. Forif it is a marvel in itself that such a literary masterpiece as the Qur'an wasproduced at all, then it is even more amazing that it was written by some-one who was illiterate (7:157).

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PERFECT PRESERVATIONOF THE QUR ' AN

The fact that the Qur ' an has been kept from any textual corruption isanother evidence often given by Muslims for the miraculous nature ofthe Qur'an's marvelous preservation. Suzanne Haneef, for example,proudly notes that "the Holy Qur'an is the only divinely revealed scrip-ture in the history of mankind which has been preserved to the present

52. Al-Baqillani, ljaz al-Qur'an, 38, as cited by Jeffery, 57.53. Nehls, 38.

The Qur'an 107

time in its exact original form." 54 Since this is true of no other holy book,who but God could be the cause?

THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECIES IN THE QUR 'AN

Muslims also use fulfilled prophecy to defend the miraculous nature ofthe Qur'an. Mow else, they say, could Muhammad have accurately predictedevents in advance, such as the Roman victory over the Persians (30:2-4)?

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE UNITY OF THE QUR ' AN

Islamic scholars sometimes appeal to the fact that the Qur'an has nocontradictions as evidence of its divine origin: "Do they [unbelievers] notconsider The Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, theywould surely Have found therein Much discrepancy" (4:82). Yusuf Aliclaims that "the unity of the Qur'an is admittedly greater than that of anyother sacred book. And yet how can we account for it except through theunity of God's purpose and design?"

55

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY OF THE QUR'AN

More recently it has been popular to argue that the Qur'an's scientificaccuracy is proof of its divine authority. Bucaille insists that the scientificevidence "will lead to the conclusion that it is inconceivable for a humanbeing living in the Seventh century A.D. to have expressed assertions inthe Qur'an on highly varied subjects that do not belong to his period andfor them to be in keeping with what was to be revealed only centurieslater. For me, there can be no human explanation of theQur'an."56

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE AMAZING MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE

OF THE QUR 'AN

One recent popular proof for the Qur'an's divine origin is a mathemat-ical miracle based on the number nineteen. Rashad Khalifa contendsthat "the Quranic initials and their mathematical distribution prove twothings beyond a shadow of doubt: The Quran is the word of God and theQuran has been perfectly preserved."

57

THE ARGUMENT FROM CHANGED LIVES

Finally, Muslim scholars sometimes argue that the changed lives andcultures effected by the Qur'an are evidence of its divine origin. Ajijola

54. Suzanne Haneef , What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Chicago:Kazi Publications, 1979), 18-19.

55. Ali, 205.56. Bucaille, 130.57. Rashad Khalifa, Quran: A Visual Presentation of the Miracle (Karachi: Haider All

Muljee, 1983), 200.


claims that "the transformation wrought by the Holy Qur'an is unparal-leled in the history of the world and thus its claim to being unique standsas unchallenged today as it did thirteen centuries ago.... No faith everimparted such a new life to its votaries on such a wide scale." 58

CONCLUSIONBy now we can see the exalted place of the Qur'an in Islam. However,

like other monotheistic faiths, understanding divine scripture is not initself the final goal. The Qur'an is a guide and this life is a preparation forthe eternal life hereafter. It is of utmost importance that the believer beand remain on the straight path and in the end be saved from the eternalwrath of God and received into God's blessing in heaven. Therefore, it isonly appropriate that we should also understand the Muslim views of sal-vation and afterlife in order to grasp the totality of the Islamic message toman. The next chapter will be devoted to a discussion of these importanttopics.

58. Ajijola, 100-101.

6ENDTIMES AND SALVATION

So far we have covered some of the most fundamental doctrines ofIslam: God, humans, sin, prophethood, and the Qur'an. However, like allmonotheistic faiths, Islam is not concerned simply with the relationshipof God and man in this world. The ultimate goal is the salvation of peoplein the world to come. This life is only a preparation for either a life of eter-nal bliss in heaven or damnation in hell (3:185b).

The beginning messages of the Qur'an consist mainly of warningsabout the horrors of the coming day of judgment. People are challengedto live righteously in view of the fact that one day they will be heldaccountable for their actions. Indeed, in a very real sense the doctrines ofeternal salvation or damnation constitute "the central theme" of theQur'an) As a book written by two Islamic scholars points out:

So intense is the Qur'anic concern for and insistence on the day to comewhen all will be held accountable for their faith and their actions, that theethical teachings contained in the Book must be understood in the light ofthis reality. Faith in the day of resurrection for the Muslim is his specificaffirmation of God's omnipotence, the recognition of human accountabil-ity as a commitment to the divine unicity. 2

Furthermore, Islam, along with the Judeo-Christian tradition, affirmsthe purposeful direction and significance of a linear view of history. Timehas a beginning and an end, and it is within this framework of history,moving from the creation to the end (eschaton) "which God makes man-ifest [by] His signs and His commands, and at the same time it is the arenain which humanity exhibits its acceptance or rejection of those signs." 3

1.Quasem, 19.2. lane Smith and Y. Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection (Al-

bany: State University of New York Press, 1981), 2.3. Ibid., 4.

109

11 0 The Basic Doctrines of Orthodox Islam

Thus, it is appropriate that we conclude our exposition of Islam with abrief examination of Islamic eschatology (last things) and soteriology(salvation). In the first part of this chapter we will consider the Islamicviews on death and afterlife, endtimes, the final judgment, and heavenand hell. In the second part we will deal more specifically with the ques-tion of salvation in Islam. What are the conditions of salvation? And in thefinal analysis who will be saved and who will be lost?

I SLAMIC ESCHATOLOGY 4

DEATH OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Generally, Islamic eschatological manuals start with a discussion ofthe individual's death, especially since the Qur'an itself places greatemphasis on the fact of human mortality. For example, in 3:185 we read,"Every soul shall have A taste of death: And only on the Day Of Judgmentshall you Be paid your full recompense." The idea of human death andfinal judgment is also closely related in 23:15-16: "After that, at length Yewill die. Again, on the Day Of Judgment, will ye be Raised up."

Although the fact of human death is a Qur'anic certainty, the Qur'ansays very little about the process of death and the condition of thedeceased before the final resurrection. As is often the case, Islamic tradi-tion goes into great detail in order to fill in these gaps.

The process of death is described in 56:83 where it claims that the soulof the dying man comes tip to his throat. And in 6:93 it declares that at thetime of death, "the angels Stretch forth their hands, [Saying], 'Yield upyour souls. " As for the process of death for unbelievers, 8:50 says, "If thoucouldst see, When the angels take the souls Of the Unbelievers [at death],[limy] they smite their faces And their backs, [saying]: "Taste the Penaltyof the blazing Fire" (cf. 79:1-2).

Exactly what happens after this stage the Qur'an does not say. It is atthis point that we notice a heavy reliance on the hadith material in orderto explain the events that follow death. 5 According to a famous tradition,

4. These stages are based on the divisions of the Muslim author Muhammad Khouj, TheEnd of the Journey: An Islamic Perspective on Death and the Afterlife (Washington, D.C.: TheIslamic Center, 1988).

5. Two points need to be mentioned here. First, in classical theological manuals thereis also a heavy reliance on tradition to describe in full and fanciful detail the painful struggleof death itself. Since many in contemporary Islam have rejected such fanciful descriptionsof death, we will not consider this point any further (see Smith and Haddad, 34-38, andtheir Chapter 4). Second, in the discussion that follows, Smith and Haddad correctly warnus that "to isolate specific events or references or to attempt to find in these a natural pro-gression is in one sense a misdirected effort, for the events function primarily to supportfrom a variety of perspectives the basic fact of human responsibility" (77).

Endtimes and Salvation 111

the soul of the faithful person, which is easily removed from the body, isclothed in a heavenly and sweet smelling garment by radiant and smilingangels. The soul is taken through the seven heavens, entering the pres-ence of God who then orders the angels to return the soul to its earthlybody until the day of judgment. On the other hand, the soul of the unbe-lieving person is removed from its body with a great deal of struggle. Theangel of death clothes the soul with a foul smelling garment. The angelresponsible for the wicked soul also tries to take the soul through the var-ious levels of heaven but the gates of heaven are not opened to them(7:40), and the soul is then also returned to its body. 6 It should be addedthat "all of these events ... happen so quickly that when the soul isreturned to the body, the washers are still busy taking care of thecorpse."7

LIFE IN THE GRAVE

According to orthodox (and also popular) Islam, the abode of death—"life in the grave" or barzakh—is a very active place. Most Muslimsbelieve that there are two angels, usually called Munkar and Nakir, whovisit the dead person to ask him a series of questions about his faith. Theaccounts do not agree on exactly what questions will be asked of thedeceased. However, most versions indicate that after entering the grave,the angels ask the dead person to sit up; they ask him who is his Lord,what is his religion, and who is his prophet. "The correct answers, whichthe virtuous know immediately, are God, Islam, andMuhammad."8

For the believers who pass the test successfully the angels make theirgraves more spacious, and open a window through which they can gazeat the Garden and receive the winds and odor of Paradise. For unbeliev-ers who fail the test, the angels "open a door to hell fire for him. Thus thedeceased feels the heat and hot winds from hell and his grave narrowsuntil his ribs merge into one another." 9

The idea of torment after death is also a widely held belief amongorthodox Muslims. According to a hadith related by Aisha, the prophetclaimed that "the torment of the grave is a fact." Aisha continued, "Neverdid I see henceforth Allah's Messenger (pbuh [peace be upon him])observe his prayer and not seek refuge with Allah from the torment of thegrave."10 In another hadith, Muhammad explained the torture of thegrave in this way:

6. See Khouj, 19-23.7. See Smith and Haddad, 40.8. Ibid ., 42.9. Khouj, 22.10. Ibid., 31.


Anas said that he heard Allah's Messenger (pbuh) saying: "When the ser-vant is placed in a grave and his friends abandon him, he hears the noise oftheir shoes." Two angels come and make him sit and then say: "What doyou have to say about this person—Muhammad (pbuh)." The believerwould say: "I bear witness to the fact that he is the servant of Allah and HisMessenger." It would be said to him: "Look to your seat in hell fire. VerilyAllah has changed it for your seat in paradise," and he sees them both andit would be said to the hypocrite and unbeliever: "What did you say aboutthis person (Allah's Apostle)" and he would say: "I do not know. I used tosay what other people used to say." It would be said: "You neither knew norfollowed those who have been saved from hell fire (believers)." He wouldbe beaten with iron hammers and utter a shout which would be heard byall near him, except manandjinn.11

Of course, the above hadith only touches on the torment of the gravein reference to unbelievers. There are also other reports that talk about ageneral torment for almost every one. Many prominent Muslim theolo-gians, including Al-Ghazali, thought "it is too simple merely to concludethat there will be a black and white division into those who are punishedin this intermediate period in the grave and those who are not." 'there-fore, they argued "that with few exceptions each individual will undergosome kind of torment, slight or heavy, dependent upon the particularconfiguration of his or her deen (religion or faith) while on earth." 12 Thus,"orthodoxy came to accept as a fact, that the faithful and faithless alikewill suffer the pressure [daght] of the tomb, although only the kafir[unbelievers] also must undergo the adhab or more strenuous forms ofpunishment. "13 It is often suggested that the difference between the tor-ment of the believer and the unbeliever, besides its intensity, is thatwhereas the torment for the unbeliever is a prefiguring of the final des-tiny of the wicked, the believer's torment is mostly designed to have apurging effect on the soul. 14

Many assumed that after the period of the punishment most individ-

11. Ibid., 31-32. Khouj does not address the contradiction between these two hadiths.According to the hadith related by Aisha, Muhammad himself sought refuge from the tor-ment of the grave. While the hadith from Anas indicates that the sole criterion for the tor-ture in the grave is based on not having a correct attitude toward the prophethood ofMuhammad. Ile does not explain how the prophet himself could fear failing such a test.

12. Smith and Haddad, 45.13. Ibid., 46.14. In the history of Islam some groups, such as the Mu'tazilites, the majority of philos-

ophers, and many among the Shi'ites , have denied the possibility of the events just de-scribed and have found the idea of punishment or rewards while in the grave unacceptable."For the majority of Muslims, however, the punishment of the grave has been a reality, af-firmed in the creeds ... and specified in the hadiths of strong and not-so-strong chains oftransmission" (Smith and Haddad, 47).


uals fall into a "sleep state." Yet a great majority seem to adhere to a beliefthat the spirits of the deceased will continue to be fully conscious andactive in this period of barzakh. Even though the Qur'an seems clear thatthe dead cannot hear the living (27:80), many traditions and reports indi-cate that the dead hear quite well. According to one hadith the prophetaffirmed that the dead speak and even visit each other. 15 According toanother hadith, Muhammad said, "Any man who visits the grave of hisbrother and sits near it will make his brother feel happy and less lonely.The deceased will respond to his brother, although the latter will not beable to hear or respond."

16

There is certainly no uniform Islamic opinion about the activities ofdeparted souls at this stage. According to a report from Abu Hurayra,when a believer dies his spirit circles around his house for about a month,observing how his belongings are handled. Then for a year his spirit cir-cles around his grave, observing those who have prayed and mourned forhim. After a year his spirit reaches the place "where the spirits are gath-ered together for the day of resurrection." 17 According to Al-Ghazali,there are four categories of spirits. Some wander around the earth. Some"God allows to slumber." Others, like the spirits of martyrs, remain intheir graves for two or three months and then are flown up to the Garden.The spirits in the fourth category, which includes those of the prophetsand saints, are given free choice to do what they please, so that some havegone to heaven and some have chosen to remain onearth.18

Of course, we ought to point out that many contemporary Muslimsreject these vivid accounts of classical theology and have decided not tospeculate about the details of postmortem experience. "The great major-ity of contemporary Muslim writers, in fact, choose not to discuss theafterlife. They are satisfied with simply affirming the reality of the day ofjudgment and human accountability without providing any details orinterpretive discussion." 19

According to Smith and Haddad, most modern Muslim thinkers whotreat questions of the afterlife can be divided into three basic categories.In one category we find the traditionalists, who affirm the classicalteachings as continually valid and see their task mainly in "presentingthe material in modern Arabic, which makes it accessible to the averagereader." 20 A second group, which the authors identify as the modern-

ists, are mainly "interested in discussing the nature of human responsi-

15. Ibid., 51.16. See Khouj, 34.17. See Smith and Haddad, 50.18. Ibid., 52-53.19. Ibid., 100.20. Ibid.


bility and accountability ... [and] their approach to the material ishomiletic rather didactic."21 Many writers in this category acknowledgethat even though human language must be used to describe the condi-tion of life after death, this language must not he conceived in a literalsense, but in a spiritual or metaphorical sense. 22 In an interesting com-ment, an influential Muslim author writes, "The Messenger of Godwarned that sinners, after death, will be tormented by so many snakes;some simple-minded men have examined the graves of the sinners andwondered at failing to see these snakes. They do not understand thatthe tormenting snakes have their abode within the unbeliever's spirit,and they exist in him even before he died, for they were but his own evilqualities symbolized."

23

The last group is classified as the spiritualists. This group is for the mostpart a direct result of Western research in the field of spiritism and commu-nicating with the spirit world. 24 It is obvious therefore that there is no wide-spread Islamic consensus on the exact nature and details of the afterlife.

THE FINAL HOUR

As mentioned earlier, in Islam there is not only an emphasis on the factof individual death, but also a parallel emphasis on the consummation ofhistory as we know it prior to the day of judgment. Like other monothe-istic faiths, Islamic theology has developed a doctrine of last things deal-ing with the specific topic of the "endtimes."

The Qur'an affirms that although "the Hour is coming," God has pur-posefully designed to "keep it hidden" (20:15). In 33:63, we read, "Menask thee concerning The Hour: say, 'The knowledge Thereof is with God(alone)': And what will make thee Understand?—perchance The Hour isnigh!" Even though the exact hour is unknown to all except God, theQur'an gives certain other "hints" about the coming of the last hour.Based on these suggestions and many prophetic hadiths, Islamic doc-trine has attempted to systematize the series of events that are to precedethe final judgment.

High on the list of Qur'anic "signs" of the last days are the cataclysmicevents that are so dramatically described throughout the Qur'an. Forexample in 82:1-5, we read, "When the Sky Is cleft asunder; When theStars Are scattered; When the Oceans Are suffered to burst forth; Andwhen the Graves Are turned upside down;— (Then) shall each soul knowWhat it hath sent forward And (what it hath) kept back." In sura 81 a sim-

21. Ibid., 106.22. Ibid., 104-13.23. Ibid., 110.24. Ibid., 113-26.

liar description is given: "When the sun (With its spacious light) Is foldedup; When the stars Fall, losing their lustre; When the mountains vanish;... When the oceans Boil over with a swell; ... (Then) shall each soulknow What it has put forward" (vv. 1-3, 6, 14).

According to the majority of Muslims (though not based on the Qur'anbut on prophetic tradition), this universal disintegration of nature is pre-ceded by a widespread moral decadence. Based on numerous hadiths, itis believed that godly wisdom will "suffer complete extinction"; there willbe an increase in the usage of wine, and "committing adultery and rapewill be common activities. "25 Truth, honesty, and piety will decrease,while there will be a great rise in injustice and moral corruption of allkinds. An interesting hadith from Bukhari reports that "the number ofmales would decrease whereas females would increase till there will heonly one male to look after fifty women."

26

While these are the more "general signs" of the approaching last hour,many theological manuals also give a list of more specific signs. Accord-ing to a tradition from Al-Muslim, the prophet gave the following com-ment about the last hour:

Thereupon he [Muhammad] said: "It will not come until you see ten signs."And (in this connection) he made a mention of the smoke; the Dajjal (oftencalled Anti-Christ); the beast; the rising of the sun from the west; thedescent of Jesus, son of Mary; the Gog and Magog; and land-slidings inthree places, one in the east, one in the west, and one in Arabia at the endof which fire would burn forth from the Yemen, and would drive people toplace of their assembly.

27

It is outside the scope of this chapter to discuss every item in the abovelist of apocalyptic occurrences. As can he expected, there is an abun-dance of traditions describing each sign in colorful detail 28 However , itis very interesting that according to many Muslim commentators, themost important sign of the closeness of the hour is the coming of Christ,his destruction of the false Messiah, and establishment of peace and righ-teousness on earth.

The popular Islamic picture of the Antichrist, or Dajjal, graphicallyportrays him as blind in one eye, with the word kafir—unbeliever—writ-ten on his forehead; his primary function is to mislead the unbelievingmasses by claiming divinehood and the power to perform miracles. He

25. Khouj, 39.26. Ibid., 38-39.27. Ibid., 42-43.28. Ibid., 42-60. Of course Muhammad Khouj, like many other Muslim writers, makes

no attempt to put these events in any chronological order.

1 16 The Basic Doctrines of Orthodox Islam

will "spread mischief" over the world, and all people except true believerswill be fascinated by him.29

At the height of Dajjal's activity the Messiah will descend to the earthand will destroy the Antichrist and then establish the true religion ofIslam. According to a very popular tradition, Muhammad said, "By Himin whose hands my soul is; surely Jesus, the son of Mary, will soondescend amongst you as a just ruler: he will break the cross and kill thepigs and there will be no jizya (taxation taken from non-Muslims).

"30It is

then claimed that after a certain period Jesus himself will die and be bur-ied near Muhammad and the first two Muslim Caliphs in the city ofMedina. 31 However, even though the majority of Sunni Muslims believein Jesus' second coming and his central role as the savior of the worldduring the end time, the majority of Shi'ite Muslims identify this saviorfigure not as Jesus but as the Mahdi ("divinely-guided one"). Accordingto Shi'ite tradition Mahdi was the twelfth Imam (successor and descen-dant of Muhammad) who miraculously disappeared and will one dayreappear to establish righteousness on the earth.

32

Another often-mentioned end time sign that has its basis in the Qur'an(though the passages are somewhat obscure) is the appearance of Gogand Magog (18:92—98; 21:96-97). According to Muhammad Khouj, "OnAllah's command, the Gog and Magog will come out of their dam at thetime of Jesus' descent." 33 The exact nature of Gog and Magog and theirrelationship to the Antichrist is difficult to determine. But many believethat Gog and Magog are two nations of powerful human beings who willbe greatly multiplied during the end times and will bring destruction tothe earth. A prophetic hadith claims that at the appointed time God willdestroy them by a plague of worms.

34

From the signs discussed so far it seems clear that not much effort hasbeen made on the part of Muslim theologians to make a coherent chro-nological order of the above listed events. But it is safe to say that after allthe signs have come to pass, this third stage ends with the final devasta-tion of the cosmic structure as a preparation for the general resurrectionof all humankind.

29. See Khouj, 44-47.30. Ibid., 54.31. For a fascinating description of the grave that is already provided for Jesus, see Zwe-

mer, The Muslim Christ (London: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1912), 107-9.32. Some Muslims, like the classical theologian lbn Khaldun, affirmed the distinct roles

of both Jesus and Mahdi and proposed a theory whereby both these characters will be co-operating with each other in bringing world peace (see Smith and Haddad, 69-70).

33. Khouj, 55.34. Ibid., 58.

Endtimes and Salvation 1 17

THE RESURRECTION OF ALL HUMANKIND

As Smith and Haddad remark, "perhaps no single point in the entiresequence of eschatological events can match this period of the trumpetsoundings for drama and excitement. "35 Concerning this event theQur'an says (69:13-16) that "when one Blast is sounded On the Trumpet,And the earth is moved, And its mountains, And they are crushed to pow-der At one stroke,—on that Day Shall the (Great) Event Come to pass, Andthe sky will be Rent asunder, for it will That Day be flimsy." Also in 39:68,we read, "The Trumpet will (just) Be sounded, when all That are in theheavens And on earth will swoon, Except such as it will Please God (toexempt). Then will a second one Be sounded, when, behold, They will bestanding And looking on!"

Islamic tradition identifies the angel of Death or Israfil as the one whowith God's permission will blow the final trumpet calls. Commenting onthe above Qur'an verses, Muhammad Khouj writes, "with the first blow,every living creature, whether on earth or in the sky, that Allah wants todie will die. With the second blow, Allah will resurrect everyone who diedfrom the beginning of creation until the last moment of life. "36 Someclassical writers, based on several Qur'anic texts that proclaim everythingwill perish except God's face (28:88; 55:26-27), go so far as to say that allthe angels—including the angel of death himself—will die in order thatGod's unity (tawhid) might be exalted. 37 After an unknown period of"time" God will resurrect all the dead,38 starting with Israfil who will blowthe tr umpet call of resurrection.

The fact of bodily resurrection is a cornerstone of Muhammad's earlypreaching. On numerous occasions the prophet was mocked for hisbelief in the corporeal resurrection, but he stood steadfast in his affirma-tion of it. "See they not that God, Who created the heavens And the earth. Is able to give life To the dead? Yea, verily He has power over allthings" (46:33). Rebuking man's unbelief in God's power, the Qur'ansays, "And he makes comparisons For Us, and forgets his own (Originand) Creation: He says, 'Who can give Life to (dry) bones And decom-posed ones (at that)?' Say, 'He will give them Life Who created them Forthe first time! For He is well-versed In every kind of creation!'" (36:78-79).

According to orthodox Muslim belief, God will recreate each individ-ual's body in its original shape from every person's imperishable seed(ajub al-dhanab), and will then rejoin every soul to its body. It is believed

35. Smith and Haddad, 71.36. Khouj, 61.37. See Smith and Haddad, 71-73.38. AI-Bukhari states in a tradition that the resurrection comes about by God sending

rain on the earth (Khouj, 64).


that everyone will feel that it has been a short time since his or herdeath.39

After all humankind is resurrected they will then be gathered beforethe throne of God. Some traditions say that all "will be assembled bare-foot, naked and uncircumcised," absolutely powerless before their cre-ator.40 After the resurrection "the individual is said to be given ampleopportunity to contemplate the imminent recompense for his pastfaults. The whole process culminates in what is called the terror of theplace of assembly [al-mahshar], or the time of standing before God [almauquf]."41

There are many references throughout the Qur'an to this awesomemeeting between human beings and their Creator. Concerning the fateof the unbelievers we read, "Say thou: 'Yea, and ye shall Then be humili-ated (On account of your evil).' Then it will be a single (Compelling) cry:And behold, they will Begin to see! They will say, 'Ah! Woe to us! this isThe Day of Judgment!' (A voice will say,) This is the Day Of Sorting Out,whose Truth ye (once) denied — (37:18-21). However, for the believers,"The Great Terror will Bring them no grief: But the angels will meet them(With mutual greetings): "This is your Day—(The Day) that ye were prom-ised" (21:103). Another comparison between the two groups is found in80:33-42:

At length, when there Comes the Deafening Noise—That Day shall a manFlee from his own brother, And from his mother And his father, And fromhis wife And his children. Each one of them, That Day, will have Enoughconcern (of his own) To make him indifferent To the others. Some Facesthat Day Will be beaming, Laughing, rejoicing. And other faces that DayWill be dust-stained; Blackness will cover them: Such will be The Rejectersof God, The Doers of Iniquity (also see 74:9-10; 75:35-39; 78:40).

Finally, after a certain amount of time (based on 70:4) which somespeculate will last fifty thousand years, and others (based on 32:5) a thou-sand, the command will be given that all should "bow in adoration"(68:42). And while the Qur'an says that the unbelievers will be unable tofall in prostration, tradition affirms that the believers will gladly do so,and the stage will be set for the moment of reckoning.

THE DAY OF ACCOUNTING

"When Allah assembles people in His presence, He will begin to judgethem on the scale of absolute justice. Everything a person does .

39. Ibid., 64-67.40. See Smith and Haddad, 74.41. Ibid., 75.


including intentions and desires, will be accounted for on this day. Atthat moment, nobody can help anyone else because a person's deedsand intention will speak for him. "42 So writes a contemporary and ortho-dox Muslim author, Muhammad Khouj. He adds, "each individual hastwo angels—one on his right who records his good deeds and one on hisleft who records the bad deeds. By Allah's orders, these angels registeredevery single act and intention of every human being. "43 Khouj's com-ments are based on the many Qur'anic passages that assure us of theabsolute justice of God in his judgment of humankind, and the fact thateach individual is judged based on his own record in his earthly life.

For example, 18:49 declares that "the Book (of Deeds) Will be placed(before you); And thou wilt see The sinful in great terror Because of whatis (recorded) Therein; they will say, 'Ah! woe to us! What a book is this! Itleaves out nothing Small or great, but Takes account thereof!' They willfind all that they Did, placed before them: And not one will thy Lord Treatwith injustice." And 17:13-14 affirms that "every man's fate We have fas-tened On his own neck: On the Day of Judgment We shall bring out Forhim a scroll, Which he will see Spread open. (It will be said to him:) `Readthine (own) record: Sufficient is thy soul This day to make out An accountagainst thee.-

In addition to the Book of Deeds as a witness to the individual's faithand action, the Qur'an also mentions the witness of the prophets againstthe unbelievers and for the believers of their community (16:89). A fur-ther testimony regarding the individual's past actions will be parts of theperson's own body. "That Day shall We set A seal on their mouths. Buttheir hands will speak To Us, and their feet Bear witness, to all That theydid " (36:65).

According to the Qur'anic imagery, the divine judicial process is car-ried out by the means of a scale (mizan), which is used for balancing theindividual's good deeds against the bad deeds. "Then those whose bal-ance (Of good deeds) is heavy—They will attain salvation: But thosewhose balance Is light, will be those Who have lost their souls; In Hell willthey abide" (23:102-3). The outcome of the divine decision is handed tothe individual; it is described in 69:18-31:

That Day shall ye be Brought to Judgment: Not an act of yours That ye hidewill be hidden. Then he that will be Given his Record In his right hand Willsay: 'Ah here! Read ye my record! l did really understand That my Accountwould (One Day) reach me!' And he will be In a life of Bliss.... And he thatwill Be given his Record In his left hand, Will say: 'Ah! would That my record

42. Khouj, 70.43. Ibid., 72.


had not Been given me! And that I had never Realised how My account(stood)! . . .' (The stern command will say): 'Seize ye him, And bind ye him,And burn ye him n the Blazing Fire.'

The last phase of the process of judgment is the crossing of the sirat (orseerat), the bridge over hell. The references in the Qur'an to this bridgeare quite obscure (36:66; 37:23-24), but as usual tradition has supplied allthe details about this final process. Muhammad Khouj claims that "afterAllah judges the people and divides them into categories, He will set aseerat. The edge of the seerat is like a sword as fine as a hair and more hotthan fiery charcoal. Then people will be asked to go through the seerat."Of course, "the more dedicated and committed a person is to his beliefs,the easier he will go through this seerat. Some will go through it like light-ning. Some will go through it like wind, others like pouring rain, and stillothers as fast as horses. The last of these will be crawling."

44

Unlike the faithful, those condemned at the judgment will not be ableto cross successfully, but will fall into the abyss of hell. Commenting onthe significance of the bridge, Smith and Haddad remark that The sym-bolic imagery of this term (sirat) is especially rich: it is completely appro-priate that the term used repeatedly in the Qur'an to represent theproper and prescribed mode of action for all the faithful, the straightpath, should be in a much more specific sense the last modality in theprocess that assesses the degree to which every individual has followedthat path." And "the sirat in Islamic thought seems to be yet anothermeans of verifying rather than testing the relative merit of any givenindividual."

45

Before we consider the Islamic view of eternal existence in heaven orhell, it is important at this point that we should also briefly discuss thepopular Islamic understanding of intercession and its role in obtainingsalvation. As we mentioned in Chapter 4, in much of popular IslamMuhammad's prophetic role as an apostle is closely tied to his salvificrole as an intercessor.

46

The exact time of Muhammad's intercession in the order of finalevents is a disputed point. Some reports mention it before the crossing ofthe bridge and some after. One of the most popular stories of theprophet's intercession, as related by Al-Ghazali, places this event muchearlier, after the sounding of the trumpets:

44. Ibid., 79.45. Smith and H Haddad, 78-79.46. This popular belief goes against the general Qur'anic testimony regarding the

possibility of intercession (2:48; 6:51), and is also rejected by many orthodox Muslims. It is in-teresting that Khouj, for example, in his sequence of eschatological events, makes nomention of Muhammad's intercession for his community.

Endtimesand Salvation121

According to this account Muslims waiting for the judgment for a thousandyears seek restlessly for one of the prophets to intercede for them with God.They go from one to the next, but each has to refuse because of some par-ticular problem or sin he has committed: Adam for eating the fruit of thetree, Noah for being too concerned for himself while his people weredrowning, Abraham for disputing with his community about the din ofGod, Moses for killing a man, and Jesus because he and his mother are wor-shipped as gods. Finally they go to Muhammad, and the Prophet says, "Iam the right one! I am the right one [to intercede] insofar as God allows itfor whomever He wills and chooses." Moving towards the pavilions of God,the Prophet asks for and is granted permission to intercede. The veils areraised, he falls in prostration for a thousand years, praising God, and theThrone itself trembles n tribute to him. 47

Not only is Muhammad given the permission to intercede, but hisintercession is so effective that many of those who had been originallycondemned to hell are released from hell and taken to heaven due to themercy of the prophet. 48 Thus popular belief is that the most sinful will besaved by Muhammad's intercession and God's mercy at the final time.The prevailing opinion is that all but the mushrikun, those who havecommitted the worst sin of impugning the tawhid [unity] of God, havethe possibility of being saved. Of course, despite the emphasis put onMuhammad as the agent of intercession, only by the mercy of God cananyone be saved from the fire: "God will take out of the Fire everyone whohas said the testimony [shahada]," says al-Subki, "and none will remainsave the kafirun [unbelievers]."

49

HEAVEN AND HELL

The Qur'an is consistent in its emphasis that "the alternative for eachindividual at the day of judgment are two: the bliss of the garden or thetorment of the fire." 50 Those who cross the sirat successfully enterheaven and those who fall off of it are thrown into the abyss of hell. Inaddition to the Qur'anic emphasis on the reality of these two destinies,the Qur'an (and of course Islamic tradition) provides an elaboratedepiction of heaven and hell. Concerning the torments of hell, theQur'an declares: "For it is a tree That springs out Of the bottom of Hell-fire: The shoots of its fruit-stalks Are like the heads Of devils." It contin-ues: "then on the top of that They will be given A mixture of Boilingwater. Then shall their return Be to the (Blazing) Fire " (37:62-68). Fur-

47. See Smith and Haddad, 80.48. Ibid., 82.49. Ibid., 81.50. Ibid., 84.


ther, when unbelievers see hell "from a place far off, They will hear itsfury and its raging sigh." And "when they are cast, Bound together, intoa Constricted place therein, they will plead for destruction There andthen! " (25:12-13). Furthermore, it has fierce " boiling hot water " (55:44),with "a fierce Blast of Fire and Boiling Water, And in the shades Of BlackSmoke" (56:42-43). "When they are cast therein, They will hear The (ter-rible) drawing in Of its breath Even as it blazes forth, Almost burstingwith fury" (67:7-8). The people of the Fire are sighing, wailing, andwretched (11:106). Their scorched skins are constantly exchanged fornew ones so that they can taste the torment anew (4:45). They drink fes-tering water and though death appears on all sides, they are not able todie (14:16-17). People are linked together in chains of seventy cubits(69:30-32), wearing pitch for clothing and fire on their faces (14:50).Boiling water will be poured over their heads, melting their insides aswell as their skins, and hooks of iron will drag them back should they tryto escape (22:19-21).51

On the other hand, heaven, which is usually referred to in the Qur'anas "Gardens of Felicity" (37:43), "is a place where believers find whatevertheir hearts desire." 52 In heaven people will be "facing each other OnThrones (of dignity)," and they will drink "from a clear-flowing fountain,Crystal-white, of taste Delicious to those Who drink (thereof )." Thefaithful are promised the companionship of young and beautifulwomen. For "beside them will be Chaste women, restraining Theirglances, with big eyes (Of wonder and beauty)" (37:48). "They willrecline (with ease) On Thrones (of dignity) Arranged in ranks; And We[God] shall join them To Companions, with beautiful Big and lustrouseyes " (52:20; cf. also 56:22; 55:72; 44:54). They are content, peaceful, andsecure. They do not engage in idle talk and experience only peace. Nonewill ever taste death. "Rather, they will enjoy gentle speech, pleasantshade, and ever available fruit, as well as all the cool drink and meat theydesire. They will drink from a shining stream of delicious wine, fromwhich they will suffer no intoxicating aftereffects" (37:45-47). The faith-ful will wear armlets of gold and pearls as well as green and gold embroi-dered robes of the finest silk, and will he waited on by menservants (cf.52:24; 56:17; 74:19).

53

However, not all heavenly pleasures are described in this fashion.There are also references to a spiritual joy that is far greater than the plea-sures of the above descriptions. For example, in 9:72, we read, "God hathpromised to Believers, Men and women, Gardens Under which rivers

51. Ibid., 85-86.52. Khouj, 82.53. See Smith and Haddad, 88-89.


flow, To dwell therein, And beautiful mansions In Gardens of everlastingbliss. But the greatest bliss Is the Good Pleasure of God: That is thesupreme felicity."

In discussing the Qur'an's portrait of heaven and hell it is important topoint out how Muslims themselves have generally understood theseaccounts. Concerning this point Smith and Haddad write,

The Islamic community has expressed a variety of interpretations as towhether or not the rewards and punishments of the life to come are to beunderstood in their most literal sense. While the predominant

understandinghas been of the corporeal nature of the ultimate recompense, thepositive affirmation of the reality of physical torment and pleasure, thisview has generally not insisted that the realities of the next world will beidentical with those of this world. While definitely physical, recompense inthe ultimate sense is generally understood to have a reality beyond whatwe are now able to comprehend. It is, in effect, another application of theAsh'ari principle of bila kayf (without being able to understand preciselyhow).

54

In support of the above statement Muhammad Khouj is a typicalexample. Even though he is a contemporary orthodox Muslim whoseems quite literal in his understanding of the traditional Islamicapproach to afterlife, he writes: "When Allah mentions milk, honey, andwine, I le uses them to evoke an image of immense beauty. He also por-trays the believers' companions, who are beautiful ladies and hand-some gentlemen, in language that we can easily understand. Thesedescriptions actually signify the everlasting happiness for those inheaven."55

This is not to say that Muslim literalists do not believe there will bebeautiful hurs (virgins) in heaven who will be in their constant service,but it is to show that they leave the possibility open that some of theQur'anic descriptions are purely symbolic, and that their exact mean-ing will not be known until the believers enter heaven. Besides thesetraditionalists, there are a number of Muslims who deny all the physicaldescriptions of heaven and understand them in purely spiritualterms.

56

As to the duration of heaven and hell, all Muslims agree that the stateof bliss in heaven is eternal. The Qur'an itself assures believers of theeternality of heaven (3:198; 4:57; 50:34; 25:15). But there is no unani-mous agreement as to the duration of the lost in hell. The Qur'an speaks

54. Ibid.55. Khouj, 83. Also see Yusuf Ali, 1464-70.56. See Nasr.


of the punishment and torment of eternity, and describes the fire andhell itself as eternal (10:52; 32:14; 41:28; 43:74). The majority of ortho-dox Muslims accept the eternality of hell based on this testimony. Onthe other hand, based on passages such as 78:23, 11:107, and 6:128,which indicate the damned will remain in fire for a long time or will bethere as long as God wills, many contemporary Muslims believe that theQur'an leaves open the possibility that the punishment of hell will notlast forever.

57

ISLAM 'S DOCTRINE OF SALVATION

With its emphasis on the realities of heavenly bliss for believers anduntold woe for unbelievers, it is only natural that the Qur'an should beexplicit about the conditions for gaining heaven and avoiding hell. Theseare issues of eternal significance and call for discussion here.

THE NATURE OF SALVATION

As we already noted (in Chapter 2), the Islamic view of human beingsacknowledges no fallenness or depravity. Man's fundamental problemis not usually viewed as rebellion against God, but as weakness and for-getfulness that are inherent in human nature. Therefore, the Islamicview of salvation takes a decisively different form from the Christianview of this doctrine. Kateregga writes, "Islam does not identify with theChristian conviction that man needs to be redeemed. The Christianbelief in the redemptive sacrificial death of Christ does not fit the Islamicview that man has always been fundamentally good, and that God lovesand forgives those who obey his will."58 Another Muslim author, HasanAskar, writes, "In Islam there is no such thing, in principle, as conver-sion, but restoration, a returning, and a remembering.... The greatestchallenge upon this earth is not so much to explore God as to rememberthat there is one."59 European Islamicist Stanton observes that "inas-much as sin in the Qur'an does not include a taint of nature, but only aproneness to wrong actions due to the weakness of man, its [Islamic]conception of salvation does not include the element of regenera-tion."60 Thus, salvation in Islam is for the most part a future state expe-rienced only in the hereafter. It includes pardon from past sins anddeliverance from hell, as well as gaining God's favor and acceptance toheaven.

57. See Smith and Haddad, 92-95, 143-44.58. Kateregga and Shenk, 141. Also see Abdalati, 18.59. Taken from Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, 260.60. Stanton, 57.


THE MEANS TO SALVATION

Muslim theologian, Muhammad Abul Quasem, in his book Salvationof the Soul and Islamic Devotions, writes, "The Qur'an teaches that themeans to salvation in the Hereafter on the human side are belief or faith(iman) and action (amal ): salvation cannot be achieved without thesetwo means." 61 For support of this statement we can take 5:10 as a repre-sentative example: "To those who believe And do deeds of righteousnessHath God promised forgiveness And a great reward."

As to what exactly constitutes saving faith, Quasem claims that "thefaith taught by the Qur'an and the Tradition is very simple to understandand to form within oneself; its understanding is much easier than that ofthe Christian faith which involves the Trinity, sin, atonement and so on."Rather, "It has three basic ingredients—so basic that absence of any oneof them negates the presence of faith as a whole. . . . All three elements areneeded for salvation."62 These elements are: "belief in the oneness ofGod, belief in the prophecy of Muhammad, and belief in life afterdeath. "63 Concerning the prophethood of Muhammad the individualought to believe that "He was the last prophet. Every previous prophet ofGod was sent to a particular people, but Muhammad was sent to allhuman beings of the world until Doomsday."64 The first two parts of thisfaith form the well-known Islamic shahada or confession of faith. "Theshahada is so essential a part of faith that it alone, without the remainingpart, is generally known as faith or iman." 65 But belief in the future life isalso essential. "The physical nature of future life is so strongly empha-sized in the Qur'an and Tradition that its denial is considered as infidelity(kufr), which causes eternal damnation. "66

Quasem correctly points out the fundamental ingredients of Islamicfaith, but traditionally Muslim theologians have articulated the Islamicfaith according to the following five or six categories. "Iman" writes Rauf,"embodies the belief in the following: God and his attributes, the proph-ets and their virtues, the angels, the sacred books, the day of resurrection,and Qadar, namely that God decrees everything that happens in theworld." He continues: "Whosoever believes in these six parts of theIslamic faith is called Mu'min, i.e., believer; and whoever denies these

61. Quasem, 29. For Qur'anic references, see 2:25; 4:57, 122, 173; 5:10; 13:29; 14:23;18:107; 22:14, 23.

62. Quasem, 31, emphasis ours.63. Ibid., 31-33.64. Ibid., 32.65. Ibid., 33.66. Ibid.


parts or any of them is called kafir, i.e., unbeliever."67 Some Muslims donot consider qadar as an article of faith, and so acknowledge only fivearticles of faith.

Corresponding to the above categories are similar ones that have to dowith good works, which the Muslim is required to do in order to obtainsalvation. The five religious pillars of Islam consist of reciting the confes-sion, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and pilgrimage to Mecca (see Appendix2). The pilgrimage should be performed at least once in a lifetime if theindividual has an able body and can afford the trip. Some Muslims havealso included jihad, an exertion in the cause of God or a holy war, as asixth pillar of Islam (see Chapter 8 and Appendix 5).

Performance of these acts are extremely important for obtaining salva-tion, prayer being the most important.68 Kateregga writes, "Belief alone isnot enough. Man must practically perform all the duties required of him bythe Islamic faith. He must do the ibadat (devotional worship).... Worshipinvolves performing all the primary duties commanded by God and allother good deeds." 69 Quasem emphasizes that salvation is dependentupon proper and correct performance of these acts. 70 This is why almostall religious manuals go into meticulous detail about the correct way thateach of the above religious duties should he performed. 71 Quasem's treat-ment of these religious duties is to the point:

Islamic devotions are of two types, namely obligatory and supererogatory.Obligatory devotional acts are ritual prayer, fasting, divine tax, and pilgrim-age to Mecca. Ritual prayer is obligatory five times a day; more than this issupererogatory. Fasting during one full lunar month of Ramadan is obliga-tory; to fast on other great days of the year is supererogatory. . . . The 'sav-ing' merit of the four obligatory devotions accrues from their perfect perfor-mance which, of course, is impossible in the case of most people....Imperfections in the obligatory devotions ... can be made good by occa-sional performance of them as supererogatory devotions in the way justmentioned. In the case of gross imperfections, there is a severe need of theirperformance as supererogatory, otherwise salvation will be impossible. If

67. Rauf, 1.68. Sec Khouj, 76-77.69. Kateregga and Shenk, 57. See also Mahmud, L70. See Quasem, 36, 49.71. As opposed to an emphasis on the strict obedience of Islamic rituals early in Islam,

a great number of hadiths began to circulate that made the obtaining of salvation mucheasier than the Qur'an itself stated. One hadith taught that a mere affirmation of the one-ness of God was enough for entering heaven (Abdul-Haqq, 168). Another hadith indicatedthat a man was saved for giving water to a dog. And yet another one relayed the story of awoman who went to hell for being cruel to a cat (Dermenghem, 117-18. See also Mahmud,82).


imperfections are little, as in the case of saints and ascetics, performance ofobligatory acts as super-erogatory will effect the higher grade of salvation. 72

Quasem goes on to categorize devotional acts as obligatory, required,emphasized, praiseworthy, a matter of etiquette, and permissible. On thenegative side there are acts that are unlawful, forbidden, not allowed, ornot permissible, slightly disliked, and gravely disliked.

73

Therefore, in a very real sense, Islam teaches that heaven can beearned by the good works of the believer as long as he is careful to fulfillhis religious obligations and makes up for his shortcomings by perform-ing other favorable duties. As the Qur'an says, "Then those whose bal-ance (Of good deeds) is heavy,—They will attain salvation: But thosewhose balance Is light, will be those Who have lost their souls; In Hell willthey abide" (23:102-3) The Qur'an also talks about those who give theirlives "to earn the pleasure of God" (2:207) and that "God will deliver thosewho fear Him, for they have earned Heaven " (39:61).

74

On this point Kateregga writes,

Abu Huraira reports in a Hadith, that an Arab came to the Prophet and said,"Guide me to a deed by doing which I shall enter paradise." The Prophetreplied, "Worship God and do not associate anything with Him, observethe prescribed prayer, pay the obligatory zakat (alms), and fast duringRamadhan." The Arab responded, "By Him in whose hand is my soul, Ishall not add anything to it nor fall short of it." When he had left the Prophetremarked, "If anyone wishes to look at a man who will be among the peopleof paradise, Het him look at this man."

Based on this hadith, Kateregga concludes, "So if anyone performs all hisessential obligations (ibadah [or ibadat] ), without leaving out any one ofthem, his place is in paradise. It is through proper worship that man canhope for paradise."

75

For Muslims this of course does not deny that God's mercy and forgive-ness play a fundamental role in salvation. The Qur'an consistently testi-fies to the fact that God is merciful, compassionate, and forgiving. Forexample, in 39:53 we read, "Say: '0 my Servants who Have transgressedagainst their souls! Despair not of the Mercy Of God: for God forgives Allsins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.'" God's grace in saving thesinner on the day of judgment is seen in the fact that he multiplies thegood deeds of the person. The reward for a good deed is ten times morethan it should be while punishment for an evil deed is only in equal pro-

72. Quasem, 37-38.73. Ibid, 40-43.74. See Mahmud, 62.75. Kateregga and Shenk, 64-65.


portion. The evil of the believer is even changed into good (4:40; 6:160;25:70). According to one tradition, Muhammad insisted that "without themercy of God no one can attain salvation by virtue of his action." His com-panions asked, "Not even you, 0 the messenger of God?" He replied, "Noteven I. God will, however, cover me with mercy. "76 God's mercy is alsoshown in the belief that after a certain period of time God himself willbring out a large number of the damned from hell, not because of theirown merit but to demonstrate his compassion on his creatures.

THE UNCERTAINTY OF SALVATION

There is no assurance of salvation in Islam. From the very begin-ning of Islam almost all Muslims have feared for their eternal destiny.Al-Ghazali informs us:

Yet all the fathers used to refrain from giving a definite reply concerningbelief, and were extremely careful not to commit themselves. In this con-nection Sufyan al-Thawri said, "He who says, 'I am a believer in the sight ofGod,' is a liar; and he who says 'I am really a believer,' is an innovator...."Once upon a time Hassan (al-Basri) was asked, "Art thou a believer?" Towhich he replied, "If it be the will of God." Thereupon he was told, "0 AbuSaid, why do you qualify your belief?" He answered and said, "I fearsaying'yes,' and then God will say, 'Thou hast lied Hassan.' Then 1 shall rightlymerit His punishment...." Alqamah was once asked "Are you a believer?"To which he replied, "I do hope so. If it be the will of God." 77

To many Muslims the lack of assurance of salvation is not considered aweakness but a reality that can motivate continued obedience. Faruqiinsists that "great as it may be in the eyes of Islam for any person to makethe decision to enter the faith, the entry constitutes no guarantee of per-sonal justification in the eyes of God . . . there is nothing the new initiate cando which would assure him or her of salvation." Islam "denies that a humancan attain religious felicity on the basis of faith alone. . . . only the works anddeeds constitute justification in God's eyes.... On the scale of virtue andrighteousness, people occupy varying positions." The scale of justice itself"is infinite, and there is no point at which Muslims may carry their titles toParadise, as it were, in their pockets. Everyone strives and some strive morethan others.... Religious justification is thus the Muslims' eternal hope,never their complacent certainty, nor for even a fleetingmoment"78

An exception to this is when one fights in a Jihad (Holy War). This givesthe devotee direct access to heaven should he so serve in the cause of

76. See Quasem, 45.77. See Abdul-Haqq, 166-67. Also see Bhatia, 224.78. Faruqi , Islam, 5, emphasis ours.


Allah. The Qur'an declares: "Those who have Heft their homes, Or beendriven out therefrom, Or suffered harm in My Cause, Or fought or beenslain,Verily, I will blot out From them their iniquities, And admit theminto Gardens With rivers flowing beneath; —A reward from the presenceOf God, and from His Presence Is the best of rewards" (Sura 3:195 cf. 2:25;3:157-158; 4:57, 95-96; 22:58—59).

SALVATION IN OTHER RELIGIONSBefore concluding this chapter we will address the question of who

will be saved. As mentioned before (in Chapter 3), many contemporaryMuslims claim that anyone, regardless of his particular faith, can obtainsalvation provided that he has been a "doer of good" in his life. In supportof this claim Muslims often cite 2:111—12:

And they say: "None Shall enter Paradise unless He be a Jew or a Christian."Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof If ye are truthful."Nay,—whoever submits His whole self to God And is a doer of good,—Hewill get his reward With his Lord; On such shall be no fear, Nor shall theygrieve.

Also 2:62 declares that "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), And thosewho follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Christians and the Sabians,—Any who believe in God And the Last Day, And work righteousness, Shallhave their reward With their Lord: on them Shall be no fear, nor shall theygrieve."

The Qur'an defines true believers as "those who believe in God and HisApostles " (4:152). The negative side of this is clearly given to us in 4:150-51, which proclaims that "those who deny God And His apostles, and(those Who) wish to separate God from His apostles, Saying: 'We believein some But reject others;' And (those who) wish To take a course mid-way,—They are in truth (Equally) Unbelievers; And We have preparedFor Unbelievers a humiliating Punishment."

According to the testimony of the above verses, anyone who rejects theprophethood of Muhammad is an unbeliever and is destined for "ahumiliating punishment." This practically includes all the people of theworld who are outside the fold of Islam. In addition to failing this crite-rion, Christians are also condemned to the "abode of Fire" due to theirbelief that "God is Christ the son Of Mary" (5:75). The only unpardonablesin in Islam is not acknowledging the Unity of God. Since Christians areguilty of this sin their condemnation is assured. 79

79. According to earlier Meccan suras, Christians and Jews, as people of the Book (ahlel kitab) were viewed as going to heaven. Many Muslims might still believe this, eventhough it is difficult to reconcile with these later suras.


In agreement with this understanding of Islam, one Muslim scholar,Muhammad Muhsin Khan, attempts to prove in no uncertain terms thatthe Christians and Jews are guilty of committing the major unpardon-able sin of shirk due to their disbelief in Islam. He concludes his argu-ment with a hadith from Muhammad: "Prophet Muhammad said, AnyJew or Christian who heard about me and did not believe in me and whatwas revealed to me of the Holy Qur'an and any traditions, his ultimatedestination is the Hell Fire. "'80

Other world religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism also fail othercriteria, such as their lack of belief in one Supreme God and creator.Therefore, orthodox Islam is just as exclusive as any other major worldreligion. Even though Muslims believe that God at times had sent proph-ets to other nations, since the advent of Muhammad the path of salva-tion is only made available through the religion of Islam. As AbulQuasem points out, "Faith just outlined is, according to the Qur'an, theonly wholly valid faith to be found on the surface of the earth since theadvent of Islam until Doomsday. Faiths of previous revealed religionsare not entirely free from corruption now and so cannot be a means tosalvation.... The faith of Islam is the only completely valid faith."

81

In agreement with the above opinion, Muhammad Hameedullahclaims that "A Muslim venerates the Torah, the Psalter and the Gospel asthe word of God, yet he abides by the latest and the most recent of thewords of God, namely the Quran. Whoever remains attached to the pre-ceding laws, cannot he considered, by the Legislator, as law-abiding andobedient." 82 We conclude this discussion with 3:85: "If anyone desires Areligion other than Islam (submission to God), Never will it be acceptedOf him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks Of those who havelost (All spiritual good)."

CONCLUSIONWe have now finished our survey of major Islamic doctrines. We

began with a discussion of God and the central place that God has inIslamic theology. Then the Islamic teaching on creation was examined,especially man and the relationship that exists between him and his Cre-ator. Following that we saw how God's relationship to man was linked bythe chain of prophets, and how the prophets were used by God to com-municate his will to man, to guide man in the straight path. More specif-ically the person and role of Muhammad as the final prophet and the

80. See Muhammad Muhsin Khan in his introduction to The Translation of the Mean-ings of Sahih Al-Bukhari vol. 1, 56-61.

81. Quasem, 34.82. Hameedullah, 81. Also see Kateregga and Shenk, 79.


role of the Qur'an as the final revelation of God to humankind was con-sidered. Finally, we examined what Islam teaches regarding the destinyof human beings and how they should behave in order to be saved in thelife to come.

In subsequent sections we will deal more with the questions regardingthe truthfulness and adequacy of Islamic teachings.

Part Two

A CHRISTIAN RESPONSETO BASIC MUSLIM BELIEFSIn Part One we attempted to clear away Christian misunder-

standing of Islamic teachings by appealing primarily to the onlyinspired source of Islamic teaching, the Qur'an. In order toenhance our understanding of Muslim doctrine we cited recog-nized Muslim traditions, teachers, and commentators. In PartTwo we will attempt to respond to basic Muslim beliefs—such asGod, Muhammad, and the Qur'an—from a Christian perspective.The basis for the evaluation will be largely internal and factual; wewill point out misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and inaccura-cies. The primary purpose here is to examine the logical and evi-dential grounds for the Islamic claim that Muhammad is theunique prophet of God who offers the full and final revelation ofGod in the Qur'an.

7AN EVALUATION OF

ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM

No reasonable person rejects what he or she does not first attempt tounderstand. This is why we have made a sincere effort to set forth theIslamic view as clearly and correctly as possible (in Part One) beforeoffering an evaluation of it. Too often other persons' views are rejectedfor the wrong reason—for holding a position they never espoused. Hav-ing attempted to set forth as clearly as we can what Islam teaches, we turnour attention now to an evaluation of it. Our discussion of Muslim mono-theism will fall into two categories. First, we will review its characteristicfeatures. Then, we will evaluate some of the problems critics have notedwith the Islamic view of God.

A REVIEW OF SOME CENTRAL THEMESI N ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM

Since we have already discussed in detail what Muslims believe aboutGod (see Chapter 1), we will only briefly outline here some of the mainemphases.

GOD AS THE ABSOLUTE ONE (HIS UNITY)

Fundamental to the Islamic view of God is his absolute and indivisibleunity (tawhid). In sura 112 Muhammad defines God in these words: "Say:Heis God, The One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, Noris He begotten; And there is none Like unto Him." This sura " is held to beworth a third of the whole Qur'an and the seven heavens and the seven earthsare founded upon it. To confess this verse, an Islamic tradition affirms, is toshed one's sins as a man might strip a tree in autumn of its leaves." 1

1. Cragg, The Call of the Minaret. 39.

135

13 6 A Christian Response to Basic Muslim Beliefs

Two words are used in the Qur'an to describe the oneness of God:ahad and wahid. Ahad is used to deny that God has any partner or com-panion associated with him. In Arabic, this means the negation of anyother number. The word wahid may mean the same as the first word orit may also mean "the One, Same God for all." That is to say, there is onlyone God for Muslims, and he is the same God for all peoples. Thus, bothGod's unity and singularity are implied?

God's Oneness is such a fundamental aspect of Islam that, as one Mus-li m author put it, "Islam, like other religions before it in their originalclarity and purity, is nothing other than the declaration of the Unity ofGod, and its message is a call to testify to this Unity." 3 Another Muslimwriter adds, "The Unity of Allah is the distinguishing characteristic ofIslam. This is the purest form of monotheism, i.e., the worship of AllahWho was neither begotten nor beget nor had any associates with Him inHis Godhead. Islam teaches this in the most unequivocal terms." 4

It is because of this uncompromising emphasis on God's absoluteunity that the greatest of all sins in Islam is the sin of shirk, or assigningpartners to God. The Qur'an sternly declares "God forgiveth not (The sinof) joining other gods With Him; but He forgiveth Whom He pleasethother sins Than this: one who joins Other gods with God, Hath strayedfar, far away (From the Right)" (4:116).

GOD AS ABSOLUTE RULER (HIS SOVEREIGNTY)

In the words of the Qur'an, "God—There is no god But He—the Living,The Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him Nor sleep. His areall things In the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede InHispresence except As He permitteth? He knoweth What (appeareth to Hiscreatures As) Before or After Or Behind them. Nor shall they compassAught of His knowledge Except as He willeth. His Throne doth extendOver the heavens And the earth, and He feeleth No fatigue in guardingAnd preserving them For He is Most High, The Supreme (in glory)"(2:255).

God is self-sustaining and does not need anything; rather, everythingneeds him. This attribute is known as aseity, or self-existence. God is theMighty and the Almighty. He is the Willer of existing things and the thingsthat will exist; and nothing happens apart from his will. He is also theKnower of all that can be known. His knowledge encompasses the wholeuniverse that he has created and he alone sustains. God is completelysovereign over all his creation.

2. See Nassir El-Din El-Assad in Kochler, 23.3. Mahmud, 20.4. Ajijola, 55.

An Evaluation of Islamic Monotheism 137

Many of God's ninety-nine names speak of his sovereignty. He is Al-Badi, the Contriver, who contrived the whole art of creation (2:117); Al-Jabbar, the Mighty One, whose might and power are absolute (59:23);Al-Jalil, the Majestic, mighty and majestic is he; Al-Jami, the Gatherer,who gathers all men to an appointed day (3:9); Al-Hasib, the Accounter,who is sufficient as a reckoner (4:6-7); Al-Hakem, the Judge, who givesjudgment among his servants (40:48-51); Al-Aziz, the Sublime, mightyin his sublime sovereignty (59:23); Al-Ali, the High One, he who is highand mighty (2:225-26); Al-Qadir, the Able, who has the power to dowhat he pleases (17:99-101); Al-Quddus, the Most Holy One, to whomall in heaven and on earth ascribe holiness (62:1); Al-Mutaali, the Self-Exalted, who has set himself high above all (13:9-10); Al-Muizz , theHonorer, who honors or abases whom he will (3:26); Al-Muqsit, theObserver of Justice, who will set up the balances with justice (21:47-48);Al-Malik, the King, who is king of kings (59:23); Malik al-Mulk, Pos-sessor of the Kingdom, who grants sovereignty to whom he will (3:26);

Al-Muntaqim , the Avenger, who wreaks vengeance on sinners and suc-cors the believers (30:47); Al-Wahed, the One, unique in his divine sov-ereignty (13:16); Al-Wahid, the Unique, who alone has created (74:11);Al-Wakil, the Administrator, who has charge of everything (6:102).

GOD AS ABSOLUTE JUSTICE (HIS EQUITY)

Several of God's names bespeak his absolute justice. Al-Jalil, theMajestic, mighty and majestic is he. Al-Jami, the Gatherer, who gathersall men to an appointed day (3:9); Al-Hasib, the Accounter, who is suffi-cient as a reckoner (4:6); Al-Hakim, the Judge, who gives judgmentamong his servants (40:48); Al-Adl, the Just, whose word is perfect inveracity and justice (6:115); Al-Quddus, the Most Holy One, to whom allin heaven and on earth ascribe holiness (62:1); Al-Muqsit, the Observer ofJustice, who will set up the balances with justice (21:47-48); Al-Munta-qim, the Avenger, who wreaks vengeance on sinners and succors thebelievers (30:47).

GOD AS ABSOLUTE MERCY

Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, especially among Chris-tians, 5 Allah is a God of mercy. Indeed, some of God's names depict thisvery characteristic. For example, God is Ar-Rahman, the Merciful, themost merciful of those who show mercy (1:3; 12:64). He is also Al-Wadud,the Loving, compassionate and loving to his servants (11:90, 92). He has

5. This misunderstanding may arise out of the fact that God is never named or called"Father." This is because for Muslims this would imply a son which, as absolutely one, hecould not have.

138 A Christian Response to Basic Muslim Beliefs

imposed the law of mercy upon himself (6:12) and he says, "My Mercyextendeth to all things" (7:156). Muhammad said in the Qur'an, "If ye dolove God, Follow me: God will love you And forgive you your sins. For Godis Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful " (3:31).

GOD AS ABSOLUTE WILL (HIS VOLITIONALITY)

There is a certain mystery about God's names. Cragg affirms that thesenames "are to be understood as characteristics of the Divine will ratherthan laws of His nature. Action, that is, arising from such descriptivesmay be expected, but not as a matter of necessity." 6 What gives unity toall God's actions is that he wills them all. As willer he may be recognizedby the descriptions given him, but he does not conform to any. Theaction of his will may be identified from its effects, but his will of itself isinscrutable. This accounts for the antithesis in certain of God's namesthat will be discussed below. For example, God is "the One Who Headsastray" as well as "the One Who guides."

GOD AS ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWABLE (HIS INSCRUTABILITY)

Since everything is based in God's will and since his effects are some-times contradictory and do not reflect any absolute essence, God's natureis really unknowable. Indeed, "the Divine will is an ultimate beyond whichneither reason nor revelation go. In the Unity of the single will, however,these descriptions co-exist with those that relate to mercy, compassion,and glory." 7 God is named from his effects, but he is not to be identifiedwith any of them. The relation between the Ultimate Cause (God) and hiscreatures is extrinsic, not intrinsic. That is, God is called good because hecauses good, but goodness is not part of his essence.

PROBLEMS OF ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM

ABSOLUTE UNITY

Islamic monotheism is rigid and inflexible. Its view of God's unity is sostrong that it allows for no plurality in God at all. Hence, it sees no simi-larities between monotheism and tritheism, Christianity being placed inthe latter category. There are several reasons for this misunderstanding.For one thing, there appears to be a misunderstanding of the biblical textrelated to God (see discussion in Chapter 12). Muslims also often have arather grossly anthropomorphic view of what it means for Christ to be a"Son" of God, which often in the Muslim mind implies some kind of sex-ual generation. But the terms "Father" and "Son" no more necessitatephysical generation than the term "Alma Mater" implies that the school

6. See Cragg, 42.7. Ibid., 42-43.


we graduated from has a physical womb. Paternity can he understood inmore than a biological sense.

Deeper still, there is a basic philosophical problem. In the final analy-sis for many Muslim theologians God has no (knowable) essence ornature from which one can distinguish his three persons (centers of con-sciousness). This position is known as nominalism. God is absolute Will,and absolute Will must be absolutely one. A plurality of wills (persons)would make it impossible to have any absolute unity. And Muslimsbelieve God is absolutely One (both from revelation and by reason). Rea-son informed Muhammad that unity is prior to plurality. As Plotinus hadput it several centuries earlier, all plurality is made up of unities. Thus,unity is the most ultimate of all. Accepting this Neo-Platonic (i.e., Plotin-ian) way of thinking Heads logically to a denial of the possibility for anyplurality of persons in God. Hence, by the very nature of its philosophicalcommitment to a kind of Plotinianism prevalent throughout the MiddleAges, Islamic thought about God was solidified in an irretractably solitaryform of monotheism that allowed no form of trinitarianism.

However, this kind of rigid monotheism is not entirely consistent withsome of Islam's own distinctions. As we will see in more detail later (Chap-ter 11), Muslim scholars, following through consistently on certain teach-ings in the Qur'an, have made distinctions that would allow for some kindof distinctions within God's unity. For example, they believe the Qur'an isthe eternal speech of God, existing in the Mind of God from all eternity(see discussion in Chapter 9). In 85:21-22, we read, " Nay, this is A GloriousQur'an, (Inscribed) in A Tablet Preserved! [in heaven]." And in 43:3-4, weread, "We have made it A Qur'an in Arabic, That ye may be able To under-stand (and learn wisdom). And verily, it is In the Mother of the Book, InOur Presence, high (In dignity), full of wisdom" (cf. 13:39). This eternaloriginal is the template of the earthly book we know as the Qur'an.

Muslim scholars insist the Qur'an is uncreated and perfectly expressesthe mind of God. Yet they acknowledge that the Qur'an is not identical tothe essence of God. Some Muslim scholars even liken the Qur'an to theDivine Logos view of Christ held by orthodox Christians. As Yusuf K. Ibishstated of the Qur'an, "It is not a hook in the ordinary sense, nor is it com-parable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It isanexpressionof Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity,you must compare it with Christ Himself." He adds, "Christ was theexpression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will.That is what the Qur'an is."

8

Orthodox Islam describes the relation between God and the Qur'an bynoting that "speech is an eternal attribute of God, which as such is with-

8. See Waddy, 14.


out beginning or intermission, exactly like His knowledge, His might, andother characteristics of His infinite being." 9 But if speech is an eternalattribute of God that is not identical to God but is somehow distinguish-able from him, then does not this allow the very kind of plurality withinunity that Christians claim for the Trinity? Thus, it would seem that theIslamic view of God's absolute unity is, by their own distinction, notincompatible with Christian trinitarianism. In other words, the basicMuslim logic of either monotheism or polytheism (which includes trithe-ism) is invalid. They themselves allow that something can be an eternalexpression of God without being numerically identical to him. Thus, touse their own illustration, why can't Christ be the eternal "expression ofDivine Will" without being the same person as this Divine Will?

VOLUNTARISM

At the very basis of the classical Islamic view of God is a radical form ofvoluntarism and nominalism. For traditional Islam, properly speaking,God does not have an essence, at least not a knowable one. Rather, he isWill. True enough, God is said to be just and loving, but he is not essen-tially just or loving. And he is merciful only because "He hath inscribedFor Himself [the rule of] Mercy" (6:12). But it is important to rememberthat since God is Absolute Will, had he chosen to be otherwise he wouldnot be merciful. There is no nature or essence in God according to whichhe must act.

There are two basic problems with this radical form of nominalism: ametaphysical one and a moral one.

The orthodox Islamic view of God claims, as we have seen, that God isan absolutely necessary being. He is self-existent, and he cannot notexist. But if God is by nature a necessary kind of being, then it is of hisnature to exist. In short, he must have a nature or else he could not be bynature a necessary kind of being. In this same regard, orthodox Islambelieves that there are other essential attributes of God, such as self-exist-ence, uncreatedness, and eternality. But if these are all essential charac-teristics of God, then God must have an essence, otherwise they wouldnot be essential attributes. For this is precisely how essence is defined,namely, as the essential attributes or characteristics of a being.

Furthermore, there is a serious moral problem with Islamic volunta-rism. For if God is Will, without any real essence, then he does not dothings because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them.In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not haveto do good. For example, God does not have to be merciful; he could bemean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving to all; he could

9. Goldziher, 97.


hate, if he chose to do so. Indeed, in the very next verse after it says "Godwill love you.... God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful" (3:31), we read that"God loveth not those Who reject Faith" (v. 32). Further, Allah said in25:51, "Had it been Our Will, We could have sent A warner to every centreOf Population." But he did not, which smacks of arbitrariness. 10In otherwords, love and mercy are not of the essence of God. God could choosenot to be loving. This is why Muslim scholars have such difficulty with thequestion of God's predestination, which we will discuss shortly. But first,a word about Muslim agnosticism.

AGNOSTICISMSince God has no essence, at least not one that the names (or attributes)

of God really describe, the Islamic view of God involves a form of agnosti-cism. Indeed, the heart of Islam is not to knowGod but to obey him . It is notto meditate on his essence but to submit to his will. As Pfander correctlyobserved of Muslims, "If they think at all deeply, they find themselvesabsolutely unable to know God.... Thus Islam Heads to Agnosticism." 11

Islamic agnosticism about God is due to the fact that they believe Godcaused the world by extrinsic causality. Indeed, "the Divine will is an ulti-mate beyond which neither reason nor revelation go. In the Unity of the sin-gle Will, however, these descriptions co-exist with those that relate to mercy,compassion, and glory." 12 God is named from his effects, but he is not to beidentified with any of them. The relation between the ultimate cause (God)and his creatures is extrinsic, not intrinsic. That is, God is called goodbecause he causes good, but not because goodness is part of his essence.

Despite all the names of God in the Qur'an, in orthodox Islam we con-front a God who is basically unknowable. These names do not tell us any-thing about what God is like but only how God has willed to act. God'sactions do not reflect God's character.

Al-Ghazali, the most prominent theologian in the history of Islam,went so far as to say:

The end result of the knowledge of the arifin [those who know] is theirinability to know Him, and their knowledge is, in truth, that they do notknow Him and that it is absolutely impossible for them to know Him. 13

10. Compare by contrast the God of the Bible who loves all (John 3:16), convicts all ofsin (John 16:7), and desires that all be saved (2 Pet. 3:9), giving them all the necessary light(Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15) and accepting any who come to him (Acts 10:35; Deb. 11:6). Seealso N. L. Geisler, "Essentialism, Divine" in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,216-18.

11. Pfander, 187.12. See Cragg, 42-43.13. Fadlou Shehadi, Ghazali's Unique Unknowable God (Leiden: E. I. Brill, 1964), 37.

14 2 A Christian Response to Basic Muslim Beliefs

Fadlou Shehadi, a contemporary scholar of AI-Ghazali, after analyzingAl-Ghazali's arguments about the transcendence of God, concludes,

If God is a unique kind of being unlike any other being in any respect, morespecifically, unlike anything known to man, it would have to follow byGhazali's own principles that God is utterly unknowable. For, according toGhazali, things are known by their likeness, and what is utterly unlike whatis known to man cannot be known. Furthermore, God would have to beunknowable, completely unknowable, not only to the man in the street,'but to prophets and mystics as well. This is a conclusion that Ghazali statesvery explicitly and notinfrequently.14

According to Shehadi, "The uncompromising character of Ghazali'sagnosticism follows logically from the uncompromising stand on theutter difference of God's nature. 15

A contemporary scholar of Islam, and one quite well-known in NorthAmerica for his intellectual and social activism and also involvement ininterfaith dialogue, is Ismail Al-Faruqi. Al-Faruqi expresses the main-stream Islamic thinking on the inability of humans to know God, when hewrites:

He [God] does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. God reveals onlyHis will. Remember one of the prophets asked God to reveal Himself andGod told him, "No, it is not possible for Me to reveal Myself to anyone." .. .This is God's will and that is all we have, and we have it n perfection in theQur'an. But Islam does not equate the Qur'an with the nature or essence ofGod. It is the Word of God, the Commandment of God, the Will of God. ButGod does not reveal Himself to anyone. Christians talk about the revelationof God Himself—by God and of God—but that is the great differencebetween Christianity and Islam. God is transcendent, and once you talkabout self-revelation you have hierophancy and immanence, and then thetranscendence of God is compromised. You may not have complete tran-scendence and self-revelation at the same time. 16

Shabbir Akhtar, another contemporary Muslim theologian and a grad-uate of Cambridge University, writes in similar fashion. According toAkhtar,

The Koran, unlike the Gospel, never comments on the essence of Allah.'Allah is wise' or 'Allah is loving' may be pieces of revealed information but

14. Ibid., 21-22.15. Ibid., 48.16. AI-Faruqi, Christian Mission and Islamic Da'wah: Proceedings of the Chambesy

Dialogue Consultation (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982), 47-48.


in contrast to Christianity, Muslims are not enticed to claims that 'Allah isLove' or 'Allah is Wisdom.' Only adjectival descriptions are attributed to thedivine being and these merely as they bear on the revelation of God's will

for man. The rest remains mysterious.17

This is a fundamental point of difference between Islam and the Chris-tian faith (as AI-Faruqi has also pointed out) in regard to their doctrine ofGod. We must not easily pass over this tension. The logical outcome ofOrthodox Islamic theology is agnosticism in regard to the character of God.For Islamic theology, God has willed and has acted in many ways, but theseactions in no way reflect the divine character behind them.

Needless to say, there are some significant problems with Islamicagnosticism. We will consider several of them, including a moral, a philo-sophical, and a religious problem.

As we have seen, according to traditional Islamic teaching, God is notessentially good but only called good because he does good. He is namedfrom his actions. If this is so, then why not also call God evil, since hecauses evil? Why not call him faithless, since he causes people not tobelieve? It would seem consistent to do so, since God is named from hisactions. If Muslims reply that there is something in God that is the basisfor calling him good but there is nothing in him as the basis for callinghim evil, then they have admitted that God's names do tell us somethingabout his essence. In fact, they have admitted an intrinsic relationbetween the cause (the Creator) and the effect (his creation). This Headsto a second problem, a metaphysical one. In short, they would have togive up their view of God.

At the root of medieval views of God is an entrenched Neo-Platonism,springing from the second-century philosopher Plotinus. 18 He believedthat the Ultimate (God) was absolutely and indivisibly one, a positionthat heavily influenced Muslim monotheism. Further, Plotinus held thatthe One is so utterly transcendent (above and beyond all) that it cannotbe known, except by mystical experience. This, too, heavily influencednot only orthodox Muslim agnosticism but Sufi mysticism. 19 The funda-mental reason there can be no similarity between the One (God) andwhat flows from it (the universe) is because God is beyond being, andthere is no similarity between being and what is beyond it.20

17. Shabbir Akhtar, A Faith for Ail Seasons (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 1990),180-181.

18. See Anderson, Islam in the Modern World 68-69.19. See Appendix 1 for a discussion of Sufi Islam.20. Plotinus, The Enneads, trans. Stephen MacKenna (London: Faber and Faber Limit-

ed, 1966), sec 3.8.101; 6.9.4; 6.7.29; 5.3.4; 5.5.6.


Here again, the great Christian philosopher and theologian of the lateMiddle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, provided the definitive answer to Plotin-ian agnosticism and mysticism, and Muslims who followed after it.Aquinas argued that an effect must resemble its cause since "you cannotgive what you have not got." You cannot produce what you do not pos-sess. Hence, if God caused goodness, then he must be Goodness. If hecaused being, then he must be being. Whatever reality we have we havefrom him, and that he is by his very nature.

21

Objections to this view generally confuse either a material or an instru-mental cause with an efficient cause. The efficient cause of something isthat by which it comes to be. The instrumental cause is that throughwhich it comes to be. And the material cause is that out of which it ismade. Now material and instrumental causes do not necessarily resem-ble their effects but efficient causes do. For example, the painting doesnot resemble the artist's paint brush, but it does resemble the artist'smind. The reason is because the brush is only the instrumental cause,whereas the artist is the efficient cause. Neither does the computer onwhich we compare this material resemble the book, but the ideasexpressed in this book do resemble those in our minds.

Another mistake is to confuse material and efficient causality 2 2 Hotwater can cause an egg to get hard. This is because of the material con-dition of the egg. The same hot water causes wax to get soft. The differ-ence is the material on which the causality is being received. Thus, aninfinite God can and does cause a finite world. God is not thereby finitebecause he caused a finite cosmos. Nor is he contingent because he, asa necessary being, caused a contingent universe. Finiteness and contin-gency are part of the very material nature of a created being. God isunlike creation in these kinds of ways. On the other hand, everythingthat exists has being, and God is Being. Thus, there must be a similaritybetween Being and being. God is Pure Actuality, with no potentialitywhatsoever. Everything else that exists has the potential not to exist. Soall created things have actuality, since they actually exist, and potenti-ality, since they could possibly not exist. God is like creatures in theiractuality but unlike them in their potentiality. This is why when we doname God from his effects we must negate whatever implies finitudeand limitation or imperfection and attribute to him only the pureattribute or perfection. This is the reason that evil cannot be attributedto God while good can. Evil implies imperfection or privation of somegood characteristic. Good, on the other hand, does not in itself imply

21. See N. L. Geisler, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal (Grand Rapids: Baker,1991), Chap. 10.

22. Ibid.


either limitation or imperfection.23 So God is good by his very nature,but he cannot be or do evil.

There is also a religious problem with Islamic monotheism. Religiousexperience within a monotheistic context involves the relation betweentwo persons, the worshiper and God. It is, as Martin Buber correctlyobserved, an I-Thou relationship.24 But how can a person worship some-one about which he can know nothing? Even in Islam, one is supposed tosubmit to God. But how can we fall in love with someone whom we knownothing about? As the atheist Ludwig Feuerbach put it, "The truly reli-gious man can't worship a purely negative being. . . . Only when a manloses his taste for religion does the existence of God become one withoutqualities, an unknowable God." 25

Some critics have suggested that the extremely transcendent Muslimview of God has led some Muslim sects to deify Muhammad. Since rela-tionship with the transcendent God is seen to be distant, it is onlythrough Muhammad that one even dares to approach the throne ofGod. In Qawwalis (a popular cultural event), Muhammad is praised inverse. This often takes the form of deification: "If Muhammad had notbeen, God himself would not have existed!" This is an allusion to theclose relationship Muhammad is supposed to have with God. In themedia, Muhammad is often given titles like "Savior of the World" and"Lord of the Universe."26 The popular deification of Muhammad, whoviolently opposed any such idolatry, only shows the theological bank-ruptcy of the Muslim view of God—a God so distant and so unknowablethat devotees must make contact with something they can understand,even to the extent of deifying the very prophet who condemned suchidolatry.

EXTREME DETERMINISM

Since in Islam the relationship between God and human beings is basi-cally that of Master and slave, God is the sovereign monarch and manmust submit to him as an obedient slave. This overpowering picture ofGod in the Qur'an has created its own tension in Muslim theology regard-ing God's absolute sovereignty and man's free will. Despite protests to the

23. St. Augustine insightfully observed that what we call good is the positive perfectionand evil is a privation of it, since when we take all good from a thing, nothing is left. Butwhen we remove all evil from it, what is left is more perfect. See Augustine's, "Anti-Man-ichean Writings," in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the ChristianChurch, 1st series, vol. 4 (1886-1888; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979).

24. Martin Buber, l and Thou (New York, 1970).25. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, trans. George Eliot (New York: Harp-

er and Row, 1957), 15.26. Nazir-Ali, 130-31. Also see our Chapter 8 on Muhammad.


contrary,27 orthodox Islam teaches the absolute predestination of bothgood and evil, that all our thoughts, words, and deeds, whether good orevil, were foreseen, foreordained, determined and decreed from all eter-nity, and that everything that happens takes place according to what hasbeen written for it. This is because God "is the Irresistible" (6:18). Com-menting on these kinds of Qur'anic statements, Kenneth Cragg points outthat "God" is the Qadar, or "determination," of all things, and his taqdir ,or his "subjection" of everything, covers all humankind and all history."Nature, whether animate or inanimate, is subject to His command andall that comes into existence—a summer flower or a murderer's deed, anewborn child or a sinner's disbelief—is from Him and of Him." In fact, if"God so willed, there need have been no creation, there need have beenno idolatry, there need have been no Hell, there need have been no escapefrom Hell." 28 Even though Muslim scholar Fazlur Rahman admits to play-ing down extreme determinism, nonetheless he still admits that "there isno doubt that the Qur'an does make frequent statements to the effect thatGod leads aright whom He will and Heads astray whom He will, or that Godhas 'sealed up' some people's hearts to truth, etc." 29

There are four basic problems with this extreme form of predetermina-tion. They are logical, moral, theological, and metaphysical. One involvesa contradiction; one eliminates human responsibility; one makes God theauthor of evil; and one gives rise to pantheism.

THE LOGICAL PROBLEM WITH ISLAMIC DETERMINISM

Even Muslim commentators are forced to acknowledge that God per-forms contradictory actions. One of the greatest Islamicists, Goldziher,summarizes the situation in this way: "There is probably no other pointof doctrine on which equally contradictory teachings can be derivedfrom the Qur'an as on this one. "30 Another scholar notes that "the

27. Rahman, for example: "'To hold that the Qur'an believes in an absolute determin-ism of human behavior, denying free choice on man's part, is not only to deny almost theentire content of the Qur'an, but to undercut its very basis: the Qur'an by its own claim isan invitation to man to come to the right path (hudan li'lnas)" (Rahman, 20). Haykal toocomplains that critics of Islamic determinism overlook "the wide scope it leaves open forhuman freedom of action" (Haykal , 562). But while Muslim apologists would like to "havetheir cake and eat it too," they overlook clear statements to the contrary in the Qur'an, thehadith, Muslim creeds, and the logical implications of these deterministic affirmations.

28. See Cragg, 44-45.29. See Rahman, 15.30. See Goldziher, 78. However, he goes on to propose the solution for this classical

theological difficulty: "A large part of those Qur'anic statements commonly used to drawthe conclusion that God himself brings about man's sinfulness and leads man astray will beseen in a different light if we understand more precisely the word customarily taken tomean 'to lead astray.'" Thus, "the decisive verb (adalla) is not, in this context, to be under-stood as 'lead astray,' but rather as 'allow to go astray,' that is, not care about someone, not


Quranic doctrine of Predestination is very explicit though not very logi-cal." 31 For example, God is "the One Who Heads astray," as well as "theOne Who guides." He is "the One Who brings damage," as also doesSatan. He is described also by terms like "the Bringer-down," "the Com-peller" or "Tyrant," "the Haughty"—all of which, when used of men, havean evil sense.

Many Muslim scholars attempt to reconcile this by pointing out thatthese contradictions are not in God's nature (which they believe he doesnot really have), but in the realm of his will. They are not in his essencebut in his actions. However, this is an inadequate explanation for tworeasons. For one thing, as we have seen, God does have a knowablenature or essence. Hence, Muslim scholars cannot avoid the contradic-tion that God has logically opposed characteristics by placing them out-side his essence within the mystery of his will. Further, actions flow fromnature and represent it, so there must be something in the nature thatcorresponds to the action. Salt water does not flow from a fresh stream.

Others attempt to downplay the harsh extremes of Islamic determin-ism by creating a distinction, not found in the Qur'an, between what Goddoes and what he allows his creatures to do by their free choice. Thiswould solve the problem but, as we shall see, only at the expense ofrejecting the clear statements of the Qur'an as well as Islamic traditionand creeds.

THE MORAL PROBLEM WITH ISLAMIC DETERMINISM

While many Muslim scholars wish to preserve human responsibility,they can only succeed in doing so by modifying what the Qur'an actuallysays. Consider the very words of the Qur'an: "Say: 'Nothing will happento us Except what God has decreed For us- (9:51); "Whom God dothguide,—He is on the right path: Whom He rejects from His guidance,—Such are the persons who perish. Many are the Jinns and men We havemade for Hell " (7:178-79); "The Word is proved true Against the greaterpart of them: For they do not believe. We have put yokes Round theirnecks Right up to their chins, So that their heads are Forced up (and theycannot see). And We have put A bar in front of them And a bar behindthem, And further, We have Covered them up; so that They cannot see.The same is it to them Whether thou admonish them Or thou do notadmonish Them: they will not believe" (36:7-10).

What is more, the Qur'an frankly admits that God could have saved all,but did not desire to do so! "If We had so willed, We could certainly have

to show him the way out of his predicament" (pp. 79-80). But a careful look at the contextof each of the passages, as well as the traditional Islamic interpretation of them, reveals justthe opposite.

31. Stanton, 54-55.


brought Every soul its true guidance: But the Word from Me Will cometrue, 'I will Fill Hell with jinn And men all together– (32:13). It is extremelydifficult to understand how, holding such a view, one can consistentlymaintain any kind of human responsibility.

THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM WITH ISLAMIC DETERMINISMThere is another problem with this severe view of God's sovereign

determination of all events: it makes God the author of evil. The hadithportrays God in a similar way. The following tradition is reported by Al-Bukhari:

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you col-lected in the womb of his mother for forty days . . . and then Allah sends anangel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, andwhether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Thenthe soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you (or a man)may do deeds of the people of the Fire till there is only a cubit or an arm-breadth distance between him and the Fire, but then that writing ( whichAllah has ordered the angel to write) preceeds, and he does the deeds of thepeople of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the peopleof Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, andthen that writing preceeds and he does the deeds of the people of the Fireand enters it."

32

In another hadith we read,

The Prophet said, "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said toAdam, '0 Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us outof Paradise.' Then Adam said to him, '0 Moses! Allah favoured you with Histalk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His ownHand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate fortyyears before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confutedMoses," the Prophet added, repeating the statement three times.

33

Indeed, one of the most respected Muslim theologians of all time, Al-Ghazali, frankly acknowledges that "He [God] willeth also the unbelief ofthe unbeliever and the irreligion of the wicked and, without that will,there would neither be unbelief nor irreligion. All we do we do by His will:what He willeth not does not come to pass." And if one should ask whyGod does not will that men should believe, Al-Ghazali responds, "'Wehave no right to enquire about what God wills or does. He is perfectly freeto will and to do what He pleases.' In creating unbelievers, in willing that

32. Al-Bukhari, vol. 8, 387.33. Ibid., 399. For similar accounts in Bukhari, see vol. 8, "The Book of AI-Qadr. "


they should remain in that state; ... in willing, in short, all that is evil, Godhas wise ends in view which it is not necessary that we should know."

34

THE METAPHYSICAL PROBLEM WITH ISLAMIC DETERMINISM

This extreme form of determinism led some Muslim scholars to thelogical conclusion that there is really only one agent in the universe—God. One Muslim theologian wrote, "Not only can He (God) do anything,He actually is the only One Who does anything. When a man writes, it isAllah who has created in his mind the will to write. Allah at the same timegives power to write, then brings about the motion of the hand and thepen and the appearance upon paper. All other things are passive, Allahalone is active." 35 This kind of determinism is at the heart of much ofmedieval thought and is one of the major reasons the church called uponthe great intellect of Thomas Aquinas to respond. Indeed, his famousSumma contra Gentiles was occasioned by the need of Christian mission-aries dealing with Islam in Spain. History records that he stemmed theinfluence of this view in the form of Latin Averroism.

This radical predeterminism is expressed in Muslim creedal state-ments. One reads: "God Most High is the Creator of all actions of Hiscreatures whether of unbelief or belief, of obedience or of rebellion: all ofthem are by the Will of God and His sentence and His conclusion and Hisdecreeing."36 Another confesses: "God's one possible quality is Hispower to create good or evil at any time He wishes, i.e. His decree... .Both good things and evil things are the result of God's decree. It is theduty of every Muslim to believe this." Further, "It is He who causes harmand good. Rather the good works of some and the evil of others are signsthat God wishes to punish some and to reward others." So, "if God wishesto draw someone close to Himself, then He will give him the grace whichwill make that person do good works. If He wishes to reject someone andput that person to shame, then He will create sin in him. God creates allthings, good and evil. God creates people as well as their actions: He cre-ated you as well as what you do" (37:94).37 In effect the Muslim creed"There is no God but God" is recast to read "There is no one who acts butGod."38 Some Muslim mystics carried this so far that they claimed that"No creature [even] partakes in the confession of God 's oneness. Godalone confesses the oneness of God." 39

34. Cited by Abdul-Haqq, 152, from Hughe's Dictionary of Islam, 147.35. Nehls, 21.36. See Cragg, 60-61.37. Rippin and Knappert, Textual Sources for the Study of Islam, 133.38. Cited by Richard Gramlich, "Mystical Dimensions of Islamic Monotheism," in

Schimmel, 141.39. Ibid., 144.


There is no more vivid example of how Muslim determinism leads topantheism than in the Islamic mystics who declared that Muslimmonotheism is "the annihilation ofthe traces of what is human, and theisolation of what is divine." Indeed, one Muslim devotee asks God to"blot out my individuality from me, so that You may be my individual-ity." So, as Gramlich further notes, the Muslim confession of faith risesfrom "no God but God" beyond "No one acts but God," to "No one hasbeing but God.

"40

CONCLUSIONThe attitude of God's absolute control over every aspect of his creation

obviously has had a profound impact on Islamic theology and culture.The famous Persian poet, Omar Khayyam, reflects clearly the fatalisticstrain of Muslim theology when he writes:

Tis all a chequer-board of night and daysWhere destiny with men for pieces plays;Hither and thither moves and mates and slays,And one by one back n the closet lays.

40. Ibid., 142.

8AN EVALUATION OF M U HAM MAD

We have already set forth the Muslim belief that Muhammad is the lastof the prophets, who brought forth the full and final revelation of God tohumankind (see Chapter 4). The fact that the Qur'an declares itself to beGod's last word, superseding all other revelations and religions—indeed,the claim that Muhammad is a prophet of God, a belief held by one-fifthof the world's population—commands our attention.

MUHAMMAD 'S PROPHETIC CLAIM

THE NATURE OF A PROPHET

In order to properly evaluate Muhammad's claim to he a prophet ofGod, we need to review what is meant by a prophet.' In Arabic there aretwo basic words used of God's messengers. The term rasul means "onewho is sent" (like the Greek apostolos), and the term nabi signifies "onewho carries information and proclaims news from God" (this is similar tothe Hebrew nabi). 2

By nature a prophet must be a mere human being, but one of impec-cable (isma ) character, meaning that he is either sinless or else com-pletely free from all major sins . 3 As to the mission of a prophet, theQur 'an is unequivocal: 16:36 says, " In every community We have raisedup a messenger [to proclaim]: 'Worship ye Allah and shun idolatry — (seealso 40:15).

While all prophets have preached the same basic message, that of sub-mission to the divine will, nonetheless Muhammad's message is consid-

1. For further discussion of this point, see Chapter 3.2. Kateregga and Shenk, 34; and Rauf, 5.3. Abdalati, 27. Also see Rauf, 5.

151


ered distinctive in that it was the last and final word of God to humankindand it was put in perfect written form and preserved without error. Indeed,Muhammad considered himself "the Seal of the Prophets" (33:40). In awell-known hadith Muhammad states his uniqueness this way: "I havebeen given victory through the inspiring of awe at the distance of a month'sjourney; I have been given permission to intercede; I have been sent to allmankind; and the prophets have been sealed with me." 4

Of course, this unique claim to final revelation made it necessary forMuhammad to provide evidence that he superseded Abraham, Moses,Jesus, and others as the prophet of God. Traditionally Islamic apologeticshas provided several lines of reasoning for proving the superiority ofMuhammad over the previous prophets. The chief of these proofs are : 5

(1) that the Old and New Testaments both contain clear propheciesabout him; (2) that the nature of Muhammad's call to be a prophet ismiraculous; (3) that the language and the teaching of the Qur'an arewithout parallel, and thus the Qur'an alone is sufficient proof of the truthof Muhammad's claims; (4) that Muhammad's miracles are a seal set byGod Most High on his claims; (5) that his life and character prove him tohave been the last and the greatest of prophets. 6

EVALUATION OF MUSLIM CLAIM FOR BIBLICAL SUPPORT

There is no doubt that Muhammad believed he was called of God.Likewise, his conviction that God gave him revelations through the angelGabriel seemed unshaken. Of course, as all thinking people know, nei-ther subjective experience nor sincerity of conviction is in itself a proof ofthe authenticity of that experience. Critics have responded to each one ofthe evidences offered to support the claim that Muhammad is the uniqueprophet of God. They have pointed out several things that any thinkingMuslim or non-Muslim should take into consideration before coming toa conclusion on the matter.

In a very popular Muslim book, Mohammad in the Bible, Abdu 'l-AhadDawud argues that the Bible predicts the coming of the prophet Muham-mad. He claims that "Muhammad is the real object of the Covenant andin him, and in him alone, are actually and literally fulfilled all the proph-ecies in the Old Testament." 7 Likewise, of the New Testament he insiststhat "it is absolutely impossible to get at the truth, the true religion, fromthese Gospels, unless they are read and examined from an Islamic and

4. Annemarie Schimmel, "The Prophet Muhammad as a Centre of Muslim Life andThought," in Schimmel and Falaturi, 62.

5. Other evidence for the alleged supernatural confirmation of Islam, such as its rapidspread and scientific confirmation, will be considered in Chapter 9.

6. See Pfander, 225-26.7. Dawud, 11.

An Evaluation of Muhammad 153

Unitarian point of view."8 He then examines the New Testament, findingMuhammad, not Christ, to be the foretold prophet. Let's examine thetexts Dawud and other Muslims use to support these claims .9

Deuteronomy 18:15-18. God promised Moses, " I will raise up for them[Israel] a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put Mywords in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him"(v. 18). Muslims believe this prophecy is fulfilled in Muhammad, as theQur'an claims when it refers to "the unlettered Prophet [Muhammad],Whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), in the Law and theGospels" (7:157).

However, this prophecy could not be a reference to Muhammad forseveral reasons. First, it is clear that the term "brethren" means fellowIsraelites. For the Jewish Levites were told in the same passage that "theyshall have no inheritance among their brethren" (v. 2).

Second, since the term "brethren" refers to Israel, not to their Arabantagonists, why would God raise up for Israel a prophet from theirenemies?

Third, elsewhere in this book the term "brethren" also means fellowIsraelites, not foreigners. God told the Jews to chose a king "from amongyour brethren," not a "foreigner" (Deut. 17:15). Israel never chose a non-Jewish king.

Fourth, Muhammad came from Ishmael, as even Muslims admit, andheirs to the Jewish throne came from Isaac. According to the Torah, whenAbraham prayed, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!" God answeredemphatically, "My covenant I will establish with Isaac" (Gen. 17:21).Later God repeated, "In Isaac your seed shall be called" (Gen. 21:12).

Fifth, the Qur'an itself states that the prophetic line came throughIsaac, not Ishmael: "And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and Weestablished the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed" (29:27).The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali adds the word "Abraham" and changes themeaning as follows: "We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordainedAmong his progeny Prophethood And Revelation." By adding Abraham,the father of Ishmael, he can include Muhammad, a descendant of Ish-mael, in the prophetic line! But Abraham's name is not found in the Arabictext of the Qur'an, which Muslims consider to be perfectly preserved.

Sixth, according to the earliest authentic documents, 10 Jesus, notMuhammad, completely fulfilled this verse, since he was from among his

8. Ibid., 156.9. The discussion on these texts follows that in Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe,

When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).10. See Chapter 10 for evidence that the New Testament records are authentic, first-

century documents.


Jewish brethren (cf. Gal. 4:4). He also fulfilled Deuteronomy 18:18 per-fectly: "He shall speak to them all that 1 [God] command Him . " Jesus said,"I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things"(John 8:28). And, "I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Fatherwho sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I shouldspeak" (John 12:49). He called himself a "prophet" (Luke 13:33), and thepeople considered him a prophet (Matt. 21:11; Luke 7:16; 24:19; John4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). As the Son of God, Jesus was prophet (speaking tomen for God), priest (Heb. 7-10, speaking to God for men), and king(reigning over men for God, Rev. 19-20).

Finally, there are other characteristics of the "Prophet" to come that fitonly Jesus, not Muhammad. These include things like speaking with God"face to face" and performing "signs and wonders," which in the Qur'anMuhammad admitted he did not do.

Deuteronomy 33:2. Many Islamic scholars believe that this verse pre-dicts three separate visitations of God: one on "Sinai" to Moses, anotherto "Seir" through Jesus, and a third in "Paran" (Arabia) through Muham-mad who came to Mecca with an army of "ten thousand."

However, this contention can be easily answered by looking at a mapof the area. Paran and Seir are near Egypt in the Sinai peninsula (cf. Gen.14:6; Num. 10:12; 12:16—13:3; Deut. 1:1), not in Palestine where Jesusministered. Nor was Paran near Mecca, but hundreds of miles away insouthern Palestine in the northeastern Sinai.

Furthermore, this verse is speaking of the "Lord" coming, not Muham-mad. And the Lord is coming with "ten thousand saints," not ten thou-sand soldiers, as Muhammad did. There is no basis in this text for theMuslim contention that it is a prediction of Muhammad.

Finally, this prophecy is said to be one "with which Moses the man ofGod blessed the children of Israel before his death" (Deut. 33:1). If it werea prediction about Islam, which has been a constant enemy of Israel, itcould scarcely have been a blessing to Israel. In fact, the chapter goes onto pronounce a blessing on each of the tribes of Israel by God, who "willthrust out the enemy" (v. 27).

Deuteronomy 34:10. This verse claims that "there arose not a prophetsince in Israel like unto Moses" (KJV ). Muslims argue that this proves thatthe predicted prophet could not be an Israelite but was Muhammadinstead.

In response several things should be noted. First, the "since" meanssince Moses' death up until the time this last chapter was written, prob-ably by Joshua." Even if Deuteronomy were written much later, as some

11. Moses could have written about his own death by supernatural prophecy, for it isentirely within the power of God to reveal the future in minute detail (cf. Dan. 2, 7, 9, 12).


critics believe, it still was composed many centuries before the time ofChrist and, therefore, would not eliminate him.

Second, Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of this prediction of theprophet to come, not Muhammad (see comments above on Deut. 18:15-18).

Third, this could not refer to Muhammad, since the prophet to comewas like Moses who did "all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent"(Deut. 34:11). Muhammad by his own confession did not perform signsand wonders like Moses and Jesus did (see 2:118; 3:183). Finally, theprophet to come was like Moses who spoke to God "face to face" (Deut.34:10). Muhammad never even claimed to speak to God directly but gothis revelations through an angel (see 25:32; 17:105). Jesus, on the otherhand, like Moses, was a direct mediator (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 9:15) who com-municated directly with God (cf. John 1:18; 12:49; 17). Thus, the predic-tion could not have referred to Muhammad, as many Muslims claim.

Habakkuk 3:3. The text declares that "God came from Teman, TheHoly One from Mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, And theearth was full of His praise." Some Muslim scholars believe this refers tothe prophet Muhammad coming from Paran (Arabia), and use it in con-nection with a similar text in Deuteronomy 33:2.

As already noted, Paran is not near Mecca where Muhammad camebut is hundreds of miles away. Furthermore, the verse is speaking of"God" coming, not Muhammad who denied being God. Finally, the"praise" could not refer to Muhammad (whose name means "the praisedone"), since the subject of both "praise" and "glory" is God ("His"), andMuslims would be the first to acknowledge that Muhammad is not Godand should not be praised as God.

Psalm 45:3-5. Since this verse speaks of one coming with the "sword"to subdue his enemies, Muslims sometimes cite it as a prediction of theirprophet Muhammad, who was known as "the prophet of the sword."They insist it could not refer to Jesus, since he never came with a sword,as he himself admitted (Matt. 26:52).

This contention, however, fails for several reasons. First, the very nextverse (v. 6) identifies the person spoken of as "God" whom, according tothe New Testament, Jesus claimed to be (John 8:58; 10:30), but Muham-mad repeatedly denied being God, saying he was only a humanprophet.

12

Nonetheless, it is not necessary to conclude that he wrote his own obituary here. It is en-tirely possible that someone, perhaps Joshua, added this final chapter to the books ofMoses as a fitting conclusion to the life of this great man of God. It is not at all an uncom-mon practice for someone to add an obituary to the end of a work by a great man. This issi milar to the practice of one author writing a preface to the work of another author.

12. See discussion in Chapter 4.


Further, although Jesus did not come the first time with a sword, theBible declares that he will at his second coming when the "armies ofheaven" will follow him (Rev. 19:11-16); the first time he came to die(Mark 10:45; John 10:10-11). The second time he will come in " flaming firetaking vengeance on those who know not God" (2 Thess. 1:7-8). So thereis no warrant in taking this as a prediction of Muhammad. Indeed theNew Testament explicitly refers to Christ in this very passage (Heb. 1:8).

Isaiah 21:7. In Isaiah's vision "he saw a chariot with a pair of horse-men, a chariot of donkeys, and a chariot of camels." Some Muslim com-mentators take the rider on the "donkeys" to be Jesus and the rider on"camels" to be Muhammad, whom they believed superseded Jesus as aprophet. But this is a totally unfounded speculation with no basis in thetext or its context.

Even a casual look at the passage reveals that it is speaking about thefall of Babylon. Verse 9 declares: "Babylon is fallen, is fallen!" There isnothing in the text about either Christ or Muhammad. The reference tohorses, donkeys, and camels is speaking about the various means bywhich the news of Babylon's fall had spread. Again, there is absolutelynothing here about the prophet Muhammad.

Matthew 3:11. According to Dawud this prediction of John the Baptistcould not refer to Christ and must refer to Muhammad. 13 John said, "Hewho is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthyto carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Dawud arguesthat "the very preposition 'after' clearly excludes Jesus from being theforetold Prophet," since "they were both contemporaries and born in oneand the same year." Further, "it was not Jesus Christ who could beintended by John, because if such were the case he would have followedJesus and submitted to him like a disciple and subordinate." What ismore, "if Jesus were in reality the person whom the Baptist foretold .. .there would be no necessity nor any sense in his being baptized by hisinferior in the river like an ordinary penitent Jew!" Indeed, John "did notknow the gift of prophecy in Jesus until he heard— while in prison—ofhismiracles." Finally, since the one John proclaimed was to make Jerusalemand its temple more glorious (3:1; Hag. 2:8-9) then it could not havereferred to Christ; otherwise this "is to confess the absolute failure of thewhole enterprise."

14

In response, Jesus' ministry did not begin until "after" that of John's,precisely as he had said. John began ministering in Matthew 3:1 and Jesusdid not begin until after his baptism (Matt. 3:16-17) and temptation(Matt. 4:1-11). John did defer to Jesus, saying he was unworthy even to

13. See l)awud, 157.14. Ibid., 158-60, 162.


carry his shoes (Matt. 3:11). In fact, the text says, "John tried to preventHim [Jesus], saying, 'I have need to be baptized by You, and are You com-ing tome?' " (Matt. 3:14). Jesus stated his reason for baptism, namely, thatit was necessary "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15). Since he cameto "fulfill, not destroy, the law" (Matt. 5:17) he had to identify with itsdemands. Otherwise, he would not have been, as he was, perfectly righ-teous (Rom. 8:1-5). John clearly knew who Christ was when he baptizedhim, since he proclaimed him to be "the Lamb of God who takes away thesins of the world" (John 1:29). And he, like the crowd, saw the "Spirit ofGod" descend on Jesus and the "voice from Heaven" proclaim, "This isMy beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17). While John didexpress some later questions, these were quickly answered by Christ whoassured him by his miracles (Matt. 11:3-5) that he was the Messiah pre-dicted by Isaiah (Isa. 35:5-6; 40:3). Finally, all of the Old Testamentprophecies about Messiah (Christ) were not fulfilled at his first coming;some await his coming again. Jesus himself clearly stated that he wouldnot set up his kingdom until the "end of the age," after the "signs of Hiscoming" (Matt. 24:3), when they would "see the Son of Man coming onthe clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30). Only then"the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory ... [and His apostles] ontwelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28).

Most of the reasons that John's predictions referred to Christ are nowobvious. He clearly understood them to refer to Christ, proclaiming himto be "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29).The Father's voice from heaven when John baptized him confirmed thatJesus was the Messiah, the Son of God of whom John spoke. The respectwith which John deferred to Jesus when he reluctantly baptized him(Matt. 3:14) reveals that he considered Jesus his superior. LikewiseJohn's reference to being unworthy even to carry Jesus' shoes indicateshis great respect for who Jesus was. Jesus' later reconfirmation of hisMessiahship to John in prison by way of miracles reveals that Johnunderstood this to validate Jesus' claim to he the Messiah (Matt. 11:2-5).Jesus' eyewitness contemporaries and disciples considered him to bethe one predicted in the Old Testament, since that is precisely how theyapply the predictions of Malachi (3:1) and Isaiah (40:3) in their writings(Matt. 3:1-3; Mark 1:1-3; Luke 3:4-6). So it is clear without question thatJesus, not Muhammad, is the Messiah predicted by both the Old Testa-ment and by John the Baptist.

John 14:16. Muslim scholars see in Jesus' reference to the coming ofthe promised "Helper" (Greek paraclete) a prediction of Muhammad.They base this on the Qur'anic (61:6) reference to Muhammad as"Ahmad" (periclytos), which they take to be the correct rendering of theGreek word paraclete here. According to this verse, "Jesus, the Son of


Mary, said: '0 Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God ... giving gladTidings of an Apostle to come after me. Whose name shall be Ahmad.'"But again, taken in its context, there is no basis whatsoever for such aconclusion.

Of the over 5,686 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament 15 there isabsolutely no manuscript authority for placing the word periclytos("praised one") in the original, as the Muslims claim it should read.Rather, they read paraclete ("helper"). In this same passage Jesus clearlyidentifies the Helper as the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad. Jesus said, "Butthe Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send, will teach you"(John 14:26). The " Helper " was given to Jesus ' apostles ( "you," v. 16),namely, those who would "bear witness" of him because they "have beenwith ... [him] from the beginning " (John 15:27; cf. Acts 1:22; Luke 1:1-2).But Muhammad was not one of Jesus' apostles, as all admit. So he couldnot have been the one Jesus referred to as the Helper (paraclete).

The Helper Jesus promised was to abide with them "forever" (John 16),but Muhammad has been dead for over thirteen centuries! So there is noway he could qualify. And Jesus said to the disciples, "You know Him (theHelper)" (v. 17), but the apostles did not know Muhammad. They couldnot have, since he was not even born for another six centuries.

Jesus also told his apostles that the Helper will be "in you" (v. 17).Muhammad could not have been "in" Jesus' apostles, since they lived sixhundred years before his time and knew nothing about him. Neither wastheir teaching in accord with Muhammad's. So he could not have been"in" Jesus in some sort of spiritual or doctrinally compatible way.

Jesus affirmed that the Helper would be sent "in My [Jesus ' ] name"(John 14:26). But no Muslim believes Muhammad was sent by Jesus inJesus' name. The Helper whom Jesus was about to send would not "speakon His own authority" (John 16:13). But Muhammad constantly testifiesto himself in the Qur'an. For example, in 33:40, Muhammad says of him-self, "Muhammad is . . . The Apostle of God, And the Seal of the Proph-ets." The Helper would "glorify" Jesus (John 16:14), but if Islam is rightthen Muhammad supersedes Jesus, being the last of the prophets and,therefore, "the Seal of the Prophets." As such, he would not be glorifyingJesus who was an earlier and, therefore, in that sense, inferior prophet.

Finally, Jesus asserted that the Helper would come in "not many days"(Acts 1:5), whereas Muhammad did not come for six hundred years. TheHelper, however, who was the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), did come in ashort time, namely, a few days later on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5;

15. N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press,1968), Chapter 22, esp. 387 (latest figure).


2:1f.). So once more the claim that Muhammad is predicted in Scriptureis found to be completely groundless.

MUSLIM MISUSE OF SCRIPTURE

A careful observer, looking at these texts in their literary setting, willreadily ascertain how they are wrenched out of their context by Muslimapologists, eager to find in Judeo-Christian Scripture something that willshow the superiority of Islam over Judaism and Christianity. Islamicscholars complain when Christians try to interpret the Qur'an for them toChristian advantage. But they are guilty of the very thing they charge.

Furthermore, Muslim usage of Scripture is often arbitrary and withouttextual warrant. Although Islamic scholars are quick to claim that theScriptures have been corrupted (see Chapter 10), nevertheless, whenthey come upon a text that they feel can be made to lend credence to theirview, they have no problem accepting its authenticity. And this is usuallydone with total disregard for the textual evidence for the authenticity ofthe biblical text, which is based on biblical manuscripts that predate theMuslim era. In short, their determination of which biblical texts areauthentic is arbitrary and self-serving.

EVALUATION OF MUSLIM CLAIM FOR MUHAMMAD ' S DIVINE CALL

For many critics of Islam the Muslim view of Muhammad suffers froman acute case of overclaim. They do not find, for example, support for theclaim that he was called to bring the full and final revelation from God inthe circumstances that surround Muhammad's call. They point out thatduring his call he was choked by the angel. Muhammad himself said ofthe angel, "He choked me with the cloth until I believed that I should die.Then he released me and said: 'Recite!' (Iqra)." When he hesitated, hereceived "twice again the repeated harsh treatment." 16 This seems tomany an unusual form of coercion, unlike a gracious and merciful GodMuslims claim Allah to be, as well as contrary to the free choice theyclaim he has granted his creatures.

Muhammad himself questioned the divine origin of the experience. Atfirst he thought he was being deceived by a jinn or evil spirit. In fact,Muhammad was at first deathly afraid of the source of his newly foundrevelation, but he was encouraged by his wife Khadija and her cousinWaraqah to believe that the revelation was the same as that of Moses, andthat he, too, would be a prophet of his nation. One of the most widelyrespected modern Muslim biographers, M. H. Haykal, speaks vividly ofMuhammad's plaguing fear that he was demon-possessed:

16. See Andrae, 43-44.


Stricken with panic, Muhammad arose and asked himself, "What did I see?Did possession of the devil which I feared all along come to pass?' Muham-mad looked to his right and his left but saw nothing. For a while he stoodthere trembling with fear and stricken with awe. He feared the cave might behaunted and that he might run away still unable to explain what he saw. 17

Haykal notes that Muhammad had feared demon possession before,but his wife Khadijah talked him out of it. For "as she did on earlier occa-sions when Muhammad feared possession by the devil, so now stood firmby her husband and devoid of the slightest doubt." Thus "respectfully,indeed reverently, she said to him, 'Joy to my cousin! Be firm. By him whodominates Khadijah's soul I pray and hope that you will be the Prophetof this nation. By God, He will not let you down."'18 Indeed, Haykal'sdescription of Muhammad's experience of receiving a "revelation" fitsthat of other mediums. Haykal wrote of the revelation to remove the sus-picion of guilt for one of Muhammad's wives:

Silence reigned for a while; nobody could describe it as long or short.Muhammad had not moved from his spot when revelation came to himaccompanied by the usual convulsions. He was stretched out in his clothesand a pillow was placed under his head. A'ishah his wife] later reported,"Thinking that something ominous was about to happen, everyone in theroom was frightened except me, for I did not fear a thing , knowing 1 wasinnocent...." Muhammad recovered, he sat up and began to wipe his fore-head where beads of perspiration had gathered. 19

Another characteristic often associated with occult "revelations" iscontact with the dead (cf. Deut. 18:9-14). Haykal relates an occasionwhen "the Muslims who overheard him [Muhammad] asked, 'Are youcalling the dead?' and the Prophet answered, 'They hear me no less thanyou do, except that they are unable to answer me. "'20 According toHaykal, on another occasion Muhammad was found "praying for thedead buried in that cemetery." Haykal even frankly admits that "there ishence no reason to deny the event of the Prophet's visit to the cemeteryof Baqi as out of place considering Muhammad's spiritual and psychicpower of communication with the realms of reality and his awareness ofspiritual reality that surpasses that of ordinary men."

21

Also clouding the alleged divine origin of his message is the fact thatafter this there was a long period of silence, which according to some

17. Haykal, 74, emphasis ours.18. Ibid., 75, emphasis ours.19. Ibid., 337.20. Ibid., 231.21. Ibid., 496, emphasis ours.


accounts lasted about three years, during which time Muhammad fellinto the depths of despair, feeling forsaken by God, and even entertainingthoughts of suicide. These circumstances strike many as uncharacteristicof a divine call.

Further, on another occasion Muhammad set forth a revelation hethought was from God but later changed it

22God later said to the prophet,

"They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for whichAllah hath revealed no warrant" (53:23, Pickthall trans.; cf. 22:51). Butunfortunately human deception is always a possibility. Muslims them-selves believe that all claimants to revelations opposing the Qur'an involvedeception. In view of this it is reasonable to ask: Have Muslims not takenseriously the possibility that Muhammad's first impression was the rightone, namely, that he was being deceived by a demon? They acknowledgethat Satan is real and that he is a great deceiver. Why then dismiss the pos-sibility that Muhammad himself was being deceived, as he first thought?

Finally, some critics see nothing at all supernatural in the source ofMuhammad's ideas, noting that the vast majority of ideas in the Qur'anhave known sources, whether Jewish, Christian, pagan, or otherwise (seeChapter 9).

Watt's insightful comments are helpful at this point especially in view ofthe fact that Watt himself believes in the genuiness of Muhammad's pro-phetic experience: "The Meccans had numerous contacts with Christians.Their trading caravans took them to the Christian cities of Damascus andGaza in the Byzantine empire, as well as to Christian Abyssinia and thepartly-Christian Yemen. A few Christians also resided in Mecca itself... .and it is probable that a few Meccans engaged in religious discussions."

Furthermore, commenting on 16:103, and 25:4f., in which the Mec-cans charged Muhammad with receiving his ideas from certain foreign-ers in the city, Watt writes,

There is no agreement among the Muslim commentators about the iden-tity of the person 'hinted at.' Several names are given, mostly of Christianslaves in Mecca, but of at least one Jew. As is suggested in the second versequoted, there may well have been more than one person. What is impor-tant to notice is that the Qur'an does not deny that Muhammad was receiv-ing information in this way; what it insists on is that any material hereceived could not have been the Qur'an, since a foreigner could notexpress himself n clear Arabic. The probability would seem to be that

22. This involves the so-called Satanic Verses that allowed intercession to certain idols(sec Chapter 9 for more details). Sometime after this Muhammad received another revela-tion canceling the fines about praying to idols and substituting what we now find in 53: 21-23. Muhammad's explanation was that Satan had deceived him and inserted the false vers-es without his knowing it.


Muhammad talked about Biblical matters with people who knew morethan the average inhabitant of Mecca, . . . What he was given would be fac-tual knowledge, whereas the meaning and interpretation of the facts wouldcome to him by the usual process of revelation. 23

Even the noted biographer, Haykal, unwittingly places his finger on apossible source of Muhammad's "revelations." He writes, "The Arab'simagination is by nature strong. Living as he does under the vault ofheaven and moving constantly in search of pasture or trade, and beingconstantly forced into the excesses, exaggerations, and even lies whichthe life of trade usually entails, the Arab is given to the exercise of hisimagination and cultivates it at all times whether for good or for ill, forpeace or for war. "24

Finally, we should mention an incident related in Islamic hadiths thatcan shed much light on this discussion. One of Muhammad's scribes inMedina was Abdollah b. Abi Sarh. Dashti relates the following story con-cerning this scribe:

On a number of occasions he had, with the Prophet's consent, changed theclosing words of verses. For example, when the Prophet had said "And Godis mighty and wise" ('aziz, hakim), 'Abdollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writingdown "knowing and wise" ('alim , hakim), and the Prophet answered thatthere was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of thistype, 'Abdollah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelations, if fromGod, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself.After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites. 25

It is also an accepted fact in Sunni tradition that on a few occasionsQur'anic revelations were prompted by the suggestions of Muhammad'sloyal follower, Umar b. al-Khattab26

THE QUR 'AN AS A TEST FOR TRUTHWhen asked to perform miracles to support his claims, Muhammad

refused to do as other prophets had (3:181-84). Instead, he claimed thatthe language and teaching of the Qur'an were proof that his message wasdivine. Since we will deal with the substance of this claim in Chapter 9, itwill suffice here to note briefly the reasons for rejecting that claim. First,even admitting the Qur'an is beautiful in style, it is not perfect or trulyunparalleled. Second, there is nothing really unique about the basic con-

23. Watt, Muhammad 's Mecca, 44-45.24. Haykal, 319.25. Dashti, 98.26. Ibid., 111.


tent of the Qur 'an, since even Muhammad insisted that all the prophetsbefore him were given the same message

27Third, if literary style is a sign

of divine origin, then Muslims would have to conclude that the writings ofHomer and Shakespeare were divinely inspired, too. Fourth, offering theQur'an as a test for his claims is suspect and arbitrary, since it is easy to begoff when confronted with the demand to do something truly supernaturaland offer instead one's own homemade "proof' for divine authorization(see 3:183; 17:102; 23:45). 28 Fifth, Muhammad is not the only one to havereceived revelation from an angel. Judaism, Christianity, and Mormonismall make the same claims, yet Muslims reject them for their false teaching.Why then should we accept the Islamic claim as true (see Chapter 9)?

MUHAMMAD 'S MIRACLE CLAIMS

All Muslims hold that miracles confirm Muhammad's claim to be aprophet. But many Muslim apologists claim that his only miracles werethe suras of the Qur'an. Indeed, in the Qur'an Muhammad himself neveroffered any other proof, even when challenged by unbelievers to do so(3:181-84). Nonetheless, miracle stories abound in Muslim tradition.These miracle claims about Muhammad fall into three basic categories:those recorded in the Qur 'an; supernatural predictions by Muhammadin the Qur'an; and those found in the hadith (Islamic tradition).29

Many Muslims use 6:35 to show that Muhammad could do miracles. Itreads: "If their spurning is hard On thy mind, yet if Thou wert able to seekA tunnel in the ground Or a ladder to the skies And bring them a Sign,—(What good?)."

However, careful examination of the text reveals that it does not sup-port the claim that Muhammad was able to perform miracles. First of all,it is hypothetical—"If Thou were able...." It does not say he was able.Second, the passage even implies that he could not perform miracles.Otherwise, why was he being spurned for not doing so? If he could havedone miracles, then he could have easily stopped their spurning that wasso "hard On thy (his] mind."

SPLITTING THE MOON

Many Muslims understand 54:1-2 to mean that upon Muhammad'scommand, before unbelievers, the moon was split in half. It reads: "The

27. See Chapter 3.28. See also 5:35; 6:37; 7:8-9, 106-8, 116–19; 17:90–93; 20:22-23.29. For miracles found in the Hadith, see Muhammad ibn Isma' il Bukhari, The Trans-

lation of the Meaning of Sahih Al-Bukhari. Many of the points in this section weresuggested by an unpublished paper on Islamic miracles by Mark Foreman (see n. 24 inChapter 9).


Hour (of Judgment) Is nigh, and the moon Is cleft asunder. But if they seeA Sign, they turn away, And say, 'This is (But) transient magic.'"

Here again there are several difficulties with this understanding of thetext. First, Muhammad is not mentioned in the passage. Second, theQur'an does not call this a miracle, though the word sign (ayah) is used.Third, if it were a miracle it would contradict other passages that claimMuhammad did not perform feats of nature like this (3:181—84). Fourth,this passage is earlier than the other ones in which unbelievers are callingfor a sign. Fifth, a sign like this would have been universally observedthroughout the world, but there is no evidence that it was. 30 Sixth, evenother Muslim scholars say this is speaking about the resurrection of thelast days, not a miracle during Muhammad's day. They maintain that thephrase "the Hour (of judgment)" refers to the end times. The past tensethey take as the usual Arabic way of expressing a future prophetic event.

THE MIRACLE OF THE MIRAJ

This story is known as the Isra or "night journey." Many Muslimsbelieve that Muhammad, after being transported to Jerusalem, ascendedinto heaven on the back of a mule. In 17:1, we read: "Glory to (God) Whodid take His Servant For a Journey by night From the Sacred Mosque Tothe Farthest Mosque, Whose precincts We did Bless,—in order that WeMight show him some Of Our Signs." Later Muslim traditions expandedon this verse, speaking of Muhammad being escorted by Gabriel throughseveral levels of heaven, being greeted by important people (Adam, John,Jesus, Joseph, Enoch, Aaron, Moses, and Abraham), where he bargainsGod down in his command to pray fifty times to five times a day.

There is no reason to take this passage as referring to a literal trip toheaven; even many Muslim scholars do not take it so. The noted transla-tor of the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, comments on this passage, notingthat "it opens with the mystic Vision of the Ascension of the HolyProphet; he is transported from the Sacred Mosque (of Mecca) to the Far-thest Mosque (of Jerusalem) in a night and shown some of the Signs ofGod." 31 Even according to one of the earliest Islamic traditions, Muham-mad's wife, A'isha, reported that "the apostle's body remained where itwas but God removed his spirit by night."32 Further, even if this were tobe understood as a miracle claim, there is no evidence presented to testits authenticity. Since it lacks testability it has no apologetic value.

30. See Pfander, 311-12.31. Abdullah Yusuf All, "Introduction to Sura XVII," in Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an

(Cairo, Egypt: Dar Al-KitabAl- Masri, n.d.) 691.32. Ibn Ishaq, 183.


Finally, by Islam's own definition of a confirming sign, this miraclewould have no apologetic value. For according to Muslim scholars them-selves, a miracle ( mudjiza) confirming the authenticity of a prophet: (1)is an act of God that cannot he done by any creature; (2) is contrary to thecustomary course of things in that class; (3) is aimed at proving theauthenticity of that prophet; (4) is preceded by the announcement of aforthcoming miracle; (5) proceeds in the exact manner it was announced;(6) occurs only through the hands of the prophet; (7) in no way disavowsMuhammad's prophetic claim; (8) is accompanied by a challenge toreduplicate it; (9) and cannot be followed by a duplication by anyonepresent.

33However, there is no evidence in the text that the "miracle of

Mira"' even comes close to meeting all these criteria (see Chapter 9).

THE MIRACULOUS VICTORY AT BADR

Another miracle claim often attributed to Muhammad is the victory atBadr (see 3:123; 8:17). In 5:12, we read: "0 ye who believe! Call in remem-brance The favour of God Unto you when Certain men formed the designTo stretch out Their hands against you, But (God) held back Their handsfrom you: So fear God."

According to Islamic tradition, several miracles are said to haveoccurred here, the most prominent of which was God sending threethousand angels to help in the battle (supposedly identifiable by the tur-bans they wore) and the miraculous rescue of Muhammad just before aMeccan was going to kill him with a sword. One tradition tells howMuhammad threw a handful of dirt into the Meccan army to blind themand drive them into retreat.

In response to this alleged miracle several things should be observed.First, it is questionable whether all of these passages refer to the sameevent. Even many Muslim scholars believe sura 8 is speaking of anotherevent and is to be taken figuratively as God casting fear into the heart ofMuhammad's enemy, Ubai ibn Khalaf.34 Sura 5 is taken by some to referto another event, possibly to the attempted assassination of Muhammadat Usfan.

35

Second, only sura 3 mentioned Badr and it says nothing about it beinga miracle. At best it would reveal God's providential care for Muham-mad, not a supernatural event. Certainly it does not speak of a miraclethat confirms Muhammad's prophetic credentials, since there is no evi-dence that it fits the nine critera for such a miracle.

33. See "Mudjiza" in The Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1953).34. See Pfander, 314.35. See Sale, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur'an (London: Kegan Paul,

Treach, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1896), vol. 1, 125.


Finally, as many critics have pointed out, if Badr's victory is a sign ofdivine confirmation, then why was not the subsequent clear defeat at[Uhud a sign of divine disapproval? So humiliating was the defeat thatthey "pulled out two links of chain from Muhammad's wound, and twoof his front teeth fell off in the process." In addition, the Muslim deadwere mutilated on the battlefield by the enemy. One enemy of Muham-mad even "cut off a number of noses and ears [of his troops] in order tomake a string and necklace of them." 36 Yet he did not consider this asupernatural sign of divine disfavor.

37

Muhammad is not the first outnumbered military leader in history towin a big victory. The Israeli six-day war in 1967 was one of the quickestand most decisive battles in the annals of modern warfare. Yet no Muslimwould consider it a miraculous sign of the divine approval of Israel overan Arab nation (Egypt).

THE SPLITTING OF MUHAMMAD 'S BREAST

According to Islamic tradition, at Muhammad's birth (or just beforehis ascension), Gabriel is said to have cut open Muhammad's chest. Gab-riel removed and cleansed his heart, then filled it with wisdom, andplaced it back in the prophet's chest. This is based in part on 94:1-2, 8,which reads: "Have We not Expanded thee thy breast?—And removedfrom thee Thy burden ... and to thy Lord Turn (all) thy attention."

However, even most conservative Islamic scholars take this passage asa figure of speech describing the great anxiety Muhammad experiencedin his early years at Mecca. The Qur'anic commentator, Yusuf Ali said,"The breast is symbolically the seat of knowledge and of the highest feel-ing of love and affection."38

QUR ' ANIC PROPHECIES

Some Muslims offer predictive prophecies in the Qur'an as a proofthat Muhammad could perform miracles. But the evidence is not con-vincing. The suras most often cited are those in which Muhammadpromised victory to his troops.

Most ofthe so-called supernatural predictions are not supernatural at

36. Even Muslim biographer Muhammad Husayn Haykal, acknowledges "the Muslimssuffered defeat" here, rioting that the enemy was "intoxicated with her victory." Sec Haykal,266-67.

37. After the battle of Badr the Qur'an boasts that Muhammad's followers could over-come an army with God's help when outnumbered ten to one (Sura 8:65). Here they wereoutnumbered only three to one, just as they were in their victory at Badr, and yet they suf-fered a great defeat.

38. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an, vol. 2, 1755.


all. What religious military leader is there who might not say to histroops: "God is on our side; we are going to win. Fight on!"? Further,remembering that Muhammad is known as "the prophet of the Sword,"with his greatest number of conversions coming after he had forsakenthe peaceful but relatively unsuccessful means of spreading his message,it should he no surprise that he would predict victory. And consideringthe zeal of Muslim forces, who were promised Paradise for their efforts(22:58-59; 3:157-58; 3:170-71), it is no surprise that they were so oftenvictorious. It is little wonder why so many "submitted," consideringMuhammad commanded that "the punishment of those Who wage waragainst God And his Apostle, and strive With might ... Is: execution, orcrucifixion, Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, orexile from the land" (5:36).

Further, the only really substantive prediction in the Qur'an was aboutthe Roman victory over the Persian army at Issus (30:2-4), which reads:"The Roman Empire Has been defeated—In a land close by: But they,(even) after (This) defeat of theirs, Will soon be victorious—within a fewyears." Close scrutiny, however, reveals several things that make this pre-diction less than spectacular, to say nothing of supernatural.39 (1)

According to Ali "a few years" means three to nine years, but some arguethat the real victory did not come until thirteen or fourteen years after theprophecy. The defeat of the Romans by the Persians in the capture ofJerusalem took place about A.D. 614 or 615. The counteroffensive did notbegin until A.D. 622, and the victory was not complete until A.D. 625. Thiswould be at least ten or eleven years, not "a few" spoken by Muhammad.(2) Uthman's edition of the Qur'an had no vowel points (they were notadded until much later). 40 Hence, in this "prophecy" the word sayaghli-buna, "they shall defeat," could have been rendered, with the change oftwo vowels, sayughlabuna, "they shall he defeated."41 (3) Even if thisambiguity were removed, the prophecy is less than spectacular, since itis neither long-range nor unusual. One would have expected the defeatedRomans to bounce back in victory. It took little more than a perceptivereading of the trends of the time to forecast such an event. At best, itcould have been a good guess. In any event, there appears to be no suffi-cient ground for proving it is supernatural.

Finally, the only other alleged prophecy worth mentioning is found in89:2, where the phrase "By the Nights twice five" is taken by some to be

39. For this point and many others made in this section, we are indebted to the excel-lent work by Joseph Gudel in his master's thesis for Simon Greenleaf School of Law titled,To Every Muslim an Answer (1982), 54.

40. H. Spencer, Islam and the Gospel of God ( Delhi: S.P.C.K., 1956), 21.41. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Source of Islam (Edinburgh: 'I' &'I' Clark, n.d.), 137.


a prediction of the ten years of persecution early Muslims experi-enced. 42 But that this is a far-fetched interpretation is evident from thefact that even the great Islamic scholar and translator of the Qur'an,

Abdullah Yusuf All, admitted that "by the Ten Nights are usually under-stood the first ten nights ofZul-Hajj, the sacred season of Pilgrimage." 43

In any event, there is certainly no clear prediction of anything thatwould have been evident to an intelligent observer in advance of theevent. 44 Its very use as a predictive prophecy by Muslim scholars showshow desperate they are to find something supernatural in support of theQur 'an.

The evidence that Muhammad possessed a truly supernatural gift ofprophecy is lacking. The so-called prophecy is vague and subject to dis-pute. It is far easier to read this meaning back into it after the event thanbefore it.

If Muhammad possessed the ability to miraculously forecast thefuture, then surely he would have used it to squelch his opponents. Buthe never did. Instead, he admitted that he did not do miracles as theprophets before him had and simply offered his own sign (the Qur'an).

Muhammad never offered his alleged prophecy as a proof of hisprophethood. Jesus, by contrast, repeatedly offered his ability to do mir-acles as a proof that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. When about toheal the paralytic he said to the unbelieving Jews, "that you may knowthat the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"—something theJews admitted that only God could do.

MIRACLES IN THE HADITH

Most miracle claims for Muhammad do not occur in the Qur'an.Indeed, in the Qur'an Muhammad repeatedly refused to perform mira-cles to confirm his prophetic credentials. Rather, he offered only theQur'an as his sign (see Chapter 9). The vast majority of alleged miraclesoccur in the hadith, which are considered by Muslims to be second inauthority only to the Qur'an. There are hundreds of such miracle storiesin the hadith. A few will illustrate the point.

SOME MIRACLE STORIES IN THE HADITH

Al Bukhari tells the story of Muhammad's miraculous healing of thebroken leg of a companion, Addullaha ibn Atig, who was injured whileattempting to assassinate one of Muhammad's enemies.

42. Hazrat Mirza Bashir-Ud-Din Mahud Ahmad, Introduction to the Study of the HolyQuran (London: The London Mosque, 1949), 374f.

43. See Ali, 1731, note 6109.44. By contrast, there are clear and specific predictive prophecies in the Bible that were

given hundreds of years in advance (see Chapter 10).


Several sources relate the story that Muhammad miraculously pro-vided water for ten thousand of his troops at the battle of Hudaibiyah . Heallegedly dipped his hand into an empty water bottle and let the waterflow through his fingers .

There are numerous stories of miraculous provision of water. There isalso one of water being turned into milk.

Several stories exist of trees speaking to Muhammad, saluting him, ormoving from him as he passed. Once when Muhammad could not find aprivate place to relieve himself, two trees are said to have come togetherto hide him, and then returned when he was finished. Bukhari claims thatonce Muhammad leaned on a tree and the tree missed his companywhen he left. There are many stories of wolves and even mountains salut-ing Muhammad.

Some stories speak of Muhammad miraculously feeding large groupswith little food. Anas tells the story of his feeding eighty to ninety menwith just a few loaves of barley. Ibn Sa'd relates the story of a woman whoinvited Muhammad to a meal. He took a thousand men with him andmultiplied her small meal to feed them all.

The hadith often relates stories of Muhammad's miraculous dealingswith his enemies. Once Muhammad cursed one of his enemies whosehorse then sank up to its stomach in hard ground. Sa'd said Muhammadonce turned a branch of a tree into a steel sword.

AN EVALUATION OF THE ALLEGED MIRACLES IN THE HADITH

There are many reasons for questioning the authenticity of these sto-ries. Critics have observed the following.

First, none of them are recorded in the Qur'an. In fact, they are in gen-eral contrary to the whole spirit of the Muhammad of the Qur'an, whorepeatedly refused to do these very kinds of things for unbelievers whochallenged him (3:181-84; 4:153; 6:8-9).

Second, these alleged miracles follow the same pattern as the apocry-phal miracles of Christ from a century or two after his death. They are alegendary embellishment of people removed from the original events.They do not come from contemporary eyewitnesses of the events.

Third, even among Muslims there is no generally agreed upon list ofmiracles from the hadith. Indeed, the vast majority of stories from thehadith are rejected by most Muslim scholars as not being authentic. Dif-ferent groups accept different collections of them.

Fourth, the collections of the hadith that are generally accepted bymost Muslims are far removed from the original events by several gener-ations. Indeed, most of those who collected miracle stories lived one hun-dred to two hundred years after the time of the events—plenty of time forlegends to develop. They relied on stories that had been passed on orally


for many generations with ample embellishment. Even the storiesaccepted by Muslims as authentic, as determined by the isnad (chain ofstorytellers), lack credibility. For even these stories are not based on eye-witnesses but rely on many generations of storytellers, often involvinghundreds of years. Joseph Horowitz questioned the reliability of the isnad:

The question as to who first circulated these miracle tales would be veryeasy to answer if we could still look upon the isnad, or chain of witnesses,as unquestionably as we are apparently expected to do. It is especiallyseductive when one and the same report appears in various essentiallysimilar versions. . . . In general the technique of the isnad does not make itpossible for us to decide where it is a case of taking over oral account andwhere of coping from the lecture books of teachers. 45

Fifth, Bukhari, considered to be the most reliable collector, admittedthat of the 300,000 hadith he collected, he considered only 100,000 mightbe true. He then narrowed this number down to 7,275, many of which arerepetitions so that the total number is in fact near 3,000. That means thateven he admitted there were errors in over 295,000 of them!

Sixth, there is no one canon of authenticity for these stories acceptedby all Muslims. Most Muslims rank their credibility in descending orderas follows: the Sahih of Al Bukhari (d. 256 A.H. [after Hijrah] ); Al Sahih ofMuslim (d. 261 A.H.); the Sunan of Abu Du'ad (d. 275 A.11.); the Jami of Al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 A.11.); the Suand of Al Nasa (d. 303 A.11.); and the Sunan ofIbn Madja (d. 283 A.H.). Along with these hadith there were importantbiographers who related miracle stories. The most important ones areIbn Sa'd (d. 123 A.H.), Ibn Ishaq (d. 151 A.H.), and Ibn Hisham (d. 218 A.H.).The above six categories are rejected by the Shia Islam. Yet they, alongwith other Muslims, accept the Qur'an as it is. Finally, what is of crucialsignificance here is that none of these miracle stories fit the nine criteriaaccepted by Muslims for a miracle that can confirm a prophet's claim(mudjiza). Hence, by their own standard, none of them have any apolo-getic value in demonstrating the truth of Islam.

Finally, the origin of the miracle claims of Islam is suspect. It is com-mon knowledge that Islam borrowed many of its beliefs and practicesfrom other religions: 46This has also been documented by many schol-ars.47 It is not surprising that Muslim miracle claims arise, then, as aresult of Christian apologists demonstrating the superiority of Jesus tothat of Muhammad by way of Jesus' miracles. It was only after two Chris-

45. Joseph Horowitz, "The Growth of the Mohammed Legend," in The Moslem World,vol. 10 (1920): 49-58.

46. Dashti, 55.47. See Shorrosh, and Nehls, 96-102.

r


tian bishops (Abu Qurra from Edessa and Arethas from Ceasaria) hadpointed this out that the Islamic miracle stories began to appear. AsSahas noted, "The implication [of the bishop's challenge] is quite clear:Muhammad's teaching is one that might have merit; but this is notenough to qualify him as a prophet, without supernatural signs. If suchsigns could he shown one could possibly accept him as a prophet." 48

Thus, the task for Muslims was clear. If they could invent miracles theycould respond to the Christian challenge. It was soon after this thatMuhammad's miracle claims began to appear. Sahas notes that "it isquite interesting that several of these (miracle stories) sound as if they arebeing offered as responses to such Christians as Abu Qurra, and they bearan amazing resemblance to miracles of Jesus found in the Gospels. "49

Likewise, it was during this polemic that Muslims began to interpret cer-tain events in the Qur'an as miracles. All of this points toward one con-clusion: the Muhammad miracle stories lack credibility.

THE LACK OF APOLOGETIC VALUEThere are several reasons, however, why these alleged miracles have

no apologetic value in proving Muhammad was a prophet of God. First,most of them do not come from the Qur'an (which is claimed to beinspired). Therefore, they lack divine authority for Muslims such as theyclaim the Qur'an has.

Second, the miracle stories based on Muslim tradition are suspect. Theylack eyewitness accounts, contain many contradictions, and, therefore,lack credibility. The absence of these events in the Qur'an, where Muham-mad is constantly challenged to support his claims miraculously, is astrong argument that they are not authentic. Surely, if Muhammad couldhave silenced his critics by proving his supernatural confirmation hewould have done so, since he was challenged to do so on many occasions.

Third, nowhere in the Qur'an does Muhammad ever offer the miracu-lous event in nature as evidence of his divine call. Contemporary Muslimauthor, Faruqi, claims that "Muslims do not claim any miracles forMuhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad's prophethood is thesublime beauty and greatness of the revelation itself, the Holy Qur'an, notany inexplicable breaches of natural law which confound human rea-son."50 Even though some Muslim scholars dispute this claim, it is true,

48. Daniel I. Sahas, "The Formation of Later Islamic Doctrines as a Response to Byzan-tine Polemics: The Miracles of Muhammad," in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review,vol. 27, nos. 2 and 3 (Summer-Fall 1982), 312.

49. Ibid., 314. For example, Muhammad's ascension into heaven resembles Jesus' as-cension (Acts 1). Changing water into milk is like Jesus' transforming water into wine (John2). And his alleged miraculous feedings resemble Jesus' feeding of the live thousand (John 6).

50. AI-Faruqi, 20.


nonetheless, that Muhammad never performed miraculous feats innature in support of his claim to be a prophet, even though other prophetsdid and he was challenged to do likewise (3:183; 4:153; 6:8-9; 17:90-95).Even the great Muslim scholar, Abdullah Yusuf Ali , admitted that Muham-mad did not perform any miracle "in the sense of a reversing of Nature."This admission raises serious questions about his prophetic credentials.

Fourth, even Muhammad accepts the fact that God confirmed theprophets before him by miracles. Interestingly, most of the prophetsmentioned in the Qur'an are biblical characters. For example, in 6:84-86,after recounting the story of Abraham God declares: "We gave him Isaacand Jacob: all (three) we guided: and before him we guided Noah, andamong his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron:Thus do we reward those who do good: And Zakariya and John, and Jesusand Elias: All in the ranks of the Righteous: And Ismail and Elisha, andJonas, and Lot." He refers to God confirming Moses' prophetic creden-tials by miracles several times (7:106-8; 116-19). He wrote, "Then We[God] sent Moses And his brother Aaron, with Our Signs and Authoritymanifest" (23:45). The Qur'an also refers to God's miraculous powerbeing manifest through many other prophets (4:63-65). But if Muham-mad recognized that God performed miracles through these biblicalprophets, then why could he not perform them?

Fifth, Muhammad also accepts the fact that Jesus performed manymiracles to prove the divine origin of his message, such as his healings andraising people from the dead. As the Qur'an says, "0 Jesus the son of Mary... thou healest those Born blind, and lepers, by My leave [permission].And behold! thou Bringest forth the dead By My leave" (5:113). But if Jesuscould perform miraculous feats of nature to confirm his divine commis-sion, and Muhammad refused to do the same, most Christians will find itdifficult to believe Muhammad is superior to Christ as a prophet.

Sixth, when Muhammad was challenged to perform miracles to provehis claims he refused to do so. The Qur'an acknowledges that Muham-mad's opponents said, "Why is not An angel sent down to him?" to settlethe matter (6:8-9). According to Muhammad himself, unbelievers chal-lenged him to prove he was a prophet, saying, "We shall not believe inthee, until thou Cause a spring to gush Forth for us from the earth . . . Orthou cause the sky To fall in pieces, as thou Sayest (will happen), againstus; Or thou bring God And the angels before (us) Face to face" (17:90-92).Muhammad's response is illuminating: "Am I aught but a man,—Anapostle?" One cannot imagine Moses, Elijah, or Jesus giving such aresponse. Indeed, Muhammad admitted that when Moses was chal-lenged by Pharaoh he responded with miracles: "(Pharaoh) said: 'Ifindeed Thou hast come with a Sign, Show it forth,—If thou tellest thetruth.' Then (Moses) threw his rod, And behold! it was A serpent, plain


(for all to see)! And he drew out his hand, And behold! it was white To allbeholders!" (7:106-8). The Qur'an goes on to say, "Thus truth was con-firmed" (v. 118). Yet knowing this was God's way to confirm his spokes-persons, Muhammad refused to produce similar miracles. Why thenshould anyone believe he stood in the line of the great prophets of God?

Finally, Muslims offer no good explanation for Muhammad's failureto do miracles. One familiar Islamic argument is that "it is one of theestablished ways of God that He gives His Prophets that kind of miracleswhich accord with the genius of the time so that the world may see thatit is beyond human power and that the power of God manifests itself inthese miracles." Thus, "during the time of Moses the art of sorcery hadmade the greatest development. Therefore, Moses was given miracleswhich dumbfounded the sorcerers and at the sight of these miracles thesorcerers accepted the leadership and prophethood of Moses." Similarly,"during the time of the Prophet of Islam, the art of eloquent speech hadmade great advances. Therefore, the Prophet of Islam was given the mir-acle of the Qur'an whose eloquence stilled the voices of the greatestpoets of his time. "51

However, there are several serious problems with this reasoning. Firstof all, there is no evidence that this is "one of the established ways of God."To the contrary, even by the Qur'an's own admission God repeatedly gavemiracles of nature through Moses and other prophets, including Jesus. Itis God's established way to confirm his prophets through miracles.

Furthermore, it is a whole lot easier to produce a beautiful piece ofreligious literature than it is to perform miraculous feats of nature, whichthe Qur'an admits God did through other prophets. In fact, there aremany other great pieces of religious literature that teach things contraryto the Qur'an, including the Jewish prophecy of Isaiah, the Christian Ser-mon on the Mount, and the Hindu Gita. Yet all these teach things con-trary to the Qur'an.

In addition, Muhammad's unwillingness (and apparent inability) toperform miraculous feats of nature, when he knew that the prophetsbefore him could and did perform them, will sound like a cop-out to think-ing non-Muslims. They will ask, "If God confirmed other prophets by suchthings, then why did he not do the same for Muhammad and remove alldoubt?" In Muhammad's own words (from the Qur'an), "They (will) say:'Why is not A Sign sent down To him from his Lord?'" since even Muham-mad admitted that "God bath certainly Power to send down a Sign" (6:37).

Also, Muhammad gave no such answer to his critics that it was God'sestablished way to confirm his prophets in different ways in different agesaccording to the genius of the times. Rather, he simply offered his own

51. From Gudel. 38-39.

174 A Christian Response to Basic Muslin Beliefs

sign (the Qur'an) and said their reason for rejecting him was unbelief, nothis inability to do miracles. He wrote: "Say those without knowledge: 'Whyspeaketh not God Unto us? Or why cometh not Unto us a Sign?'" Muham-mad 's answer was clear: "So said the people before them Words of similari mport. Their hearts are alike " (2:118; cf. 17:90—93; 3:183).

Finally, even when there are allegedly supernatural events connectedto Muhammad's life (though not miracles of nature such as he acknowl-edges Moses and Jesus did), they can be explained by natural means. Forexample, Muslims take Muhammad's outstanding victory at the battle ofBadr in A.D. 624 as a supernatural indication of divine approval on hisbehalf. But exactly one year after Badr Muhammad's supporters suffereda humiliating defeat.52 Yet he did not consider this a supernatural sign ofdivine disfavor.53

MUHAMMAD 'S MORAL EXAMPLEMost students of Islam acknowledge that Muhammad was a generally

moral person. But Muslims claim much more. They insist that he wasboth beyond (major) sin and is the perfect moral example for human-kind. They claim that Muhammad "stands in history as the best model forman in piety and perfection. He is a living proof of what man can be andof what he can accomplish in the realm of excellence and virtue." 54 This,they say, is one of "the chief proofs" that Muhammad is the uniqueprophet from God.

55

A popular Muslim classic by Kamal ud Din ad Damiri gives us the fol-lowing description of the beloved prophet.

Mohammed is the most favored of mankind, the most honored of all apos-tles, the prophet of mercy. . . . He is the best of prophets, and his nation isthe best of nations; . . . He was perfect in intellect, and was of noble origin.He had an absolutely graceful form, complete generosity, perfect bravery,excessive humility, useful knowledge ... perfect fear of God and sublimepiety. He was the most eloquent and the most perfect of mankind in everyvariety of perfection. 56

52. So humiliating was the defeat that they "pulled out two links of chain from Muham-mad's wound, and two ofhis front teeth fell off in the process." In addition the Muslim deadwere mutilated on the battlefield by the enemy. One enemy even "cut off a number ofnosesand ears in order to make a string and necklace of them." See H Haykal, 266-67.

53.The Qur'an boasts that Muhammad's followers could overcome an army with God'shelp when outnumbered ten to one (8:65). But here they were outnumbered only three toone, just as they were in their victory at Badr, and yet they suffered a great defeat. This isscarcely a sign of a miraculous victory.

54.Abdalati, 8.55.See Pfander, 225-26.56.See Gudel, 72.


There are at least several areas where questions arise about the allegedmoral perfection of Muhammad. The first is the matter of polygamy.

The Problem of Polygamy. According to the Qur'an a man may havefour wives (4:3). This raises at least two questions. First, is polygamymoral? Second, was Muhammad consistent with his own law? And ifnot, how can he be considered the flawless moral example for human-kind?

In the Judeo-Christian tradition polygamy is considered morallywrong. Although God permitted it along with other human frailties andsins, he never commanded it.57 The Qur'an, however, clearly sanctionspolygamy, allowing that a man may have four wives if he is able to pro-vide for them: "Marry women of your choice, Two, or three, or four " (4:3).Without presupposing the truth of the Christian revelation, there aremany arguments against polygamy from a general moral point of viewcommon to both Muslims and Christians. First, monogamy should berecognized by precedent, since God gave the first man only one wife(Eve). Second, it is implied by proportion, since the amount of males andfemales God brings into the world are about equal. Finally, monogamy isimplied by parity. If men can marry several wives, why can't a wife haveseveral husbands? It seems only fair.

Even the popular Muslim biographer, Haykal, tacitly acknowledgedthe superiority of monogamy when he affirmed that "the happiness ofthe family and that of the community can best be served by the limita-

57. That monogamy is God's standard for the human race is clear from the followingfacts: (1) From the very beginning God set the pattern by creating a monogamous marriagerelationship with one man and one woman, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 2:21-25). (2) ThisGod-established example of one woman for one man, was the general practice of the hu-man race (Gen. 4:1) until interrupted by sin (Gen. 4:23). (3) The Law of Moses clearly com-mands, You shall not multiply wives" (Deut. 17:17). (4) The warning against polygamy isrepeated in the very passage where it numbers Solomon's many wives (1 Kings 11:2), warn-ing that "you shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you." (5) Our Lord reaffirmedGod's original intention by citing this passage (Matt. 19:4) and noting that God created one" male and lone] female" and joined them in marriage. (6) The New Testament stresses that"each man [should ] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband" (1 Corn7:2). (7) Likewise, Paul insisted that a church leader should he "the husband of one wife" (1Tim. 3:2, 12). (8) Indeed, monogamous marriage is a prefiguration of the relation betweenChrist and his bride, the Church (Eph. 5:31-32).

In fact, the Bible reveals that God severely punished those who practiced polygamy, asis evidenced by the following: (1) Polygamy is first mentioned in the context of a sinful so-ciety in rebellion against God where the murderer "Lamech took for himself two wives"(Gen. 4:19, 23). (2) God repeatedly warned polygamists of the consequences of their actions"lest his heart turn away" from God (Deut. 17:17; cf. 1 Kings 11:2). (3) God never command-

ed polygamy—like divorce, he only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts(Deut. 24:1; Malt. 19:8). (4) Every polygamist in the Bible, including David and Solomon(1Chron. 14:3), paid dearly for his sins. (5) God hates polygamy, as he hates divorce, since itdestroys his ideal for the family (cf. Mal. 2:16). Taken from Geisler and Howe, 183-84.


tions which monogamy imposes. "58 Indeed, Muhammad's relationswith his wives is itself an argument against polygamy. Haykal notes, forexample, problems stemming from polygamy: "the wives of the Prophetwent so far as to plot against their husband." This is understandable in sofar as Haykal admits that "he (Muhammad] often ignored some of hiswives, and avoided others on many occasions. "59 He adds, "Indeed,favoritism for some of his wives had created such controversy and antag-onism among the 'Mothers of the Believers' that Muhammad oncethought of divorcing some of them." 6° All of this falls short of an exem-plary moral situation both in principle and in practice.

Even laying aside for the moment the question of whether polygamy,as taught in the Qur'an, is morally right there remains another seriousproblem that many feel flaws the character of Muhammad. Muhammadreceived a revelation from God that a man should have no more than fourwives at one time, yet he had many more. A Muslim defender of Muham-mad, writing in The Prophet of Islam as the Ideal Husband, admitted thathe had fifteen wives! Yet he told others they could have only four wives.How can someone be a perfect moral example for the whole human raceand not even live by one of the basic laws he laid down as from God?

The Muslim answer is unconvincing. They claim that the prophetreceived a "revelation" that God had made an exception for him but notfor anyone else. Muhammad quotes God as saying: "Prophet! We haveMade lawful to thee Thy wives.... And any believing women Who dedi-cates her soul To the Prophet if the Prophet Wishes to wed her;" but addsquickly, "this Only for thee, and not For the Believers (at large)" (33:50,emphasis added)! What is more, Muhammad even received an allegeddivine sanction to marry Zainab, the divorced wife of his adopted son(33:37). Interestingly, this divorce was caused by the prophet's admira-tion for Zainab's beauty.

In addition to all this, we are asked to believe that God made a specialexception to another divinely revealed law to give each wife her conjugalrights "justly," that is, to observe a fixed rotation among them. Muham-mad insists that God told him that he could have whichever wife hewanted when he wanted her: "Thou mayest defer (the turn Of) any ofthem that thou Pleasest, and thou mayest receive Any thou pleasest"(33:51). Apparently even God had to put the brakes on Muhammad'slove for women. For eventually he received a revelation that said, "It isnot lawful for thee (To marry more) women After this, nor to change

58. See Haykal, 294.59. Ibid., 436. The reason given is even more revealing, namely, he avoided them "in or-

der to discourage their abuse of his compassion" [!].60. Ibid., 437.

An Evaluation ofMuhammad 177

Them for (other) wives, Even though their beauty Attract thee" (33:52). Alook at Muhammad's inconsistency makes one wonder how anyonewith open eyes can consider him to be a perfect moral example and idealhusband.

The Lower Status of Women. The Qur'an and tradition accord alower status for women than for men. The superior status of men isbased directly on commands in the Qur'an. As already noted, men canmarry several wives (polygamy) but women cannot marry several hus-bands (polyandry). The Qur'an (2:228) admits that men have a degreeof advantage over women. The Qur'an explicitly affords men the rightto divorce their wives but does not accord the equal right to women,claiming, "Men have a degree of advantage over them" (2:228). 61 Onone occasion Muhammad sanctioned the beating of a female servantin order to elicit the truth from her. Haykal reports that "the servantwas called in and Ali immediately seized her and struck her painfullyand repeatedly as he commanded her to tell the truth to the Prophetof God."62 Finally, according to the Qur'an, men can even beat theirwives: "Men are in charge of women because Allah hath made the oneto excell the other. . . . As for those from whom ye fear rebellion,admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them"(4:34). 63 In addition to this, Muslim women must wear a veil, standbehind their husbands, and kneel behind them in prayer. The lawrequires that two women must bear witness in civil contracts asopposed to one man.

64

In a hadith found in the Sahih ofAl-Bukhari we find the following nar-rative describing the inferior status of women in Islam:

Narrated [by] Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire andthat the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It wasasked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) Hereplied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for thefavors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them."65

In view of all these statements about women, one finds it incredible tohear Muslim apologists say, "Evidently, Muhammad not only honoredwoman more than did any other man, but he raised her to the statuswhich truly belongs to her—an accomplishment of which Muhammad

61. See Rippin and Knappert, 113-15.62. See Haykal, 336.63. Quran, Pickthall translation, emphasis added. Ali softens this verse by adding the

word "lightly" not found in the Arabic, as follows: "(And last) beat them (lightly)."64. See Abdalati, 189-91.65. Al-Bukhari, vol. 1, 29.


alone has so far been capable"[!]66 Another Muslim writer states, "Islamhas given woman rights and privileges which she has never enjoyedunder other religious or constitutional systems." 67 The facts show justthe opposite.

Muhammad's Moral Imperfection in General. Muhammad was farfrom sinless. Even the Qur'an speaks of his need to ask God for forgive-ness on many occasions. For example, in 40:55 God told him, "Patiently,then, persevere: For the Promise of God Is true: and ask God forgivenessFor thy fault." On another occasion God told Muhammad, "Know, there-fore, that There is no god But God, and ask Forgiveness for thy fault, andfor the men And women who believe" (47:19, emphasis added). Thismakes it absolutely clear that forgiveness was to be sought for his sins,not just for others (48:2).

In view of the facts about Muhammad recorded in the Qur'an,Muhammad's character was certainly far from flawless. Even one of themost widely accepted modern biographers of Muhammad admits thathe sinned. Speaking of one occasion, Haykal said flatly, "Muhammad didin fact err when he frowned in the face of [the blind beggar] ibn UmmMaktum and sent him away." 68 Haykal adds, "in this regard he [Muham-mad] was as fallible as anyone." 69 If so, then it is difficult to believe thatMuhammad can be so eulogized by Muslims. However much animprovement Muhammad's morals may have been over many others ofhis day, he certainly seems to fall short of the perfect example for all menof all times that many Muslims claim for him. Unlike the Jesus of the Gos-pels, he certainly would not want to challenge his foes with the question:"Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46).

The Problem of Holy Wars (Jihad). Laying aside the question ofwhether war is ever justified, 70 Muhammad believed in holy wars (thejihad). Muhammad, by divine revelation, commands his followers: "fightin the cause Of God" (2:244). He adds, "fight and slay The Pagans wher-ever ye find them" (9:5). And "when ye meet The Unbelievers (in fight)Smite at their necks" (47:4). In general, they were to "Fight those whobelieve not In God nor the Last Day" (9:29). Indeed, Paradise is promisedfor those who fight for God: "Those who have left their homes ... Orfought or been slain,—Verily, I will blot out From them their iniquities,And admit them into Gardens With rivers flowing beneath;—A reward

66. See Haykal, 298.67. See Abdalati, 184. For further critique of Islamic and Qur'anic attitudes toward

women, see Dashti, 113-120.68. See Haykal, 134.69. Ibid., 134.70. See N. 1.. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989),

Chapter 12.

An Evaluation of Muhammad 1 79

from the Presence Of God, and from His Presence Is the best of rewards"(3:195; cf. 2:244; 4:95 cf. 8:12). These "holy wars " were carried out " in thecause Of God " (2:244) against " unbelievers. " In 5:36-38, we read: thepunishment of those Who wage war against God [i.e., unbelievers] AndHis Apostle, and strive With might and main For mischief through theland Is: execution, or crucifixion, Or the cutting off of hands And feetfrom opposite sides, Or exile from the land." Acknowledging that theseare appropriate punishments, depending on "the circumstances," Alioffers little consolation when he notes that the more cruel forms of Ara-bian treatment of enemies, such as, "piercing of eyes and leaving theunfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, " were abolished!71 Suchwar on and persecution of enemies on religious grounds—by whatevermeans—is seen by most critics as a clear example of religious intoler-ance.

72

The Problem of Moral Expediency. Muhammad sanctioned his fol-lowers' raiding of the commercial Meccan caravans. 73 The prophethimself led three such raids. Doubtless the purpose of these attackswas not only to obtain financial reward, but also to impress the Mec-cans with the growing power of the Muslim force. Critics of Islam raiseserious moral questions about this kind of piracy. At the minimumthey feel these actions cast a dark shadow over Muhammad's allegedmoral perfection.

Another time Muhammad sanctioned a follower to lie to an enemynamed Khalid in order to kill him. This he did. Then, at a safe distance,but in the presence of the man's wives "he fell on him with his sword andkilled him. Khalid's women were the only witnesses and they began to cryand mourn for him."

74

On other occasions Muhammad had no aversion to politically expedi-ent assassinations. When a prominent Jew, Ka'b Ibn Al-Ashraf, hadstirred up some discord against Muhammad and composed a satiricalpoem about him, the prophet asked, "Who will deliver me from Ka'b?"Immediately four persons volunteered and shortly returned to Muham-mad with Ka'b's head in their hands. 75 Noted modern Islamic biogra-pher, Husayn Haykal, acknowledges many such assassinations in hishook The Life of Muhammad. Of one he wrote, "the Prophet ordered the

71. Yusuf Ali, Holy Qur 'an, note 738, 252.72. In view of these clear commands to use the sword aggressively to spread Islam and

Muslim practice down through the centuries, Muslim claims that "this fight is waged sole-ly for the freedom to call men unto God and unto His religion" have a hollow ring (seeHaykal, 212).

73. Ibid., 357f.74. Ibid., 273.75. See Gudel, 74.


execution of Uqbah ibn Abu Muayt. When Uqbah pleaded, 'Who willtake care of my children, 0 Muhammad?' Muhammad answered, 'Thefire. '"76

The Qur'an itself informs us that Muhammad was not indisposed tobreaking promises when he found it advantageous. He even got a "reve-lation" to break a long-standing pledge to avoid killing during a sacredmonth of Arab: "They ask thee Concerning fighting In the ProhibitedMonth. Say: 'Fighting therein Is a grave (offense)'; But graver is it In thesight of God To prevent access To the path of God" (2:217). Again, "Godhas already ordained For you, (0 men), The dissolution of your oaths (Insome cases)" (66:2). Rather than consistency, Muhammad's moral lifewas sometimes characterized by expediency.

The Problem of Retaliation. On at least two occasions Muhammadordered people assassinated for composing poems that mocked him.This extremely oversensitive overreaction to ridicule is defended bysome in this unconvincing way: "For a man like Muhammad, whose suc-cess depended to a large extent upon the esteem which he could win, amalicious satirical composition could be more dangerous than a lost bat-tle."77 But as critics point out this is merely a pragmatic, the end-justifies-the-means ethic.

Even though, as Haykal admits, "the Muslims were always opposed tokilling any woman or children," nonetheless, "a Jewish woman was exe-cuted because she had killed a Muslim by dropping a millstone on hishead."78 Haykal reports that on another occasion "both slave women[who had allegedly spoken against Muhammad in song] were indictedand ordered executed with their master." 79 When it was believed thatone woman, Abu 'Afk, had insulted Muhammad (by a poem), one ofMuhammad's followers "attacked her during the night while she wassurrounded by her children, one of whom she was nursing." And "afterremoving the child from his victim, he killed her." 80 All of this certainlydoes not seem worthy of one held up to be the great moral example forall humankind.

The zeal with which Muhammad's followers would kill for him wasinfamous. Haykal records the words of one devotee who would havekilled his daughter at Muhammad's command. Umar ibn al Khattab, thesecond Caliph of Islam, declared fanatically, "By God, if he [Muhammad[

76. See H Haykal, 234 (cf. 236-37, 243).77. See Gudel, 74.78. See Haykal, 314.79. Ibid ., 410.80. Ibid., 243, emphasis added.


were to ask me to strike off her head, I would do so without hesita-tion" [!] .81

The Problem of Mercilessness. Muhammad attacked the last Jewishtribe of Medina based on the suspicion that they had plotted with theMeccan enemies against Muslims. Unlike the previous two Jewish tribeswho had been simply expelled from the city, this time all the men of thetribe were put to death and the women and children were sold into sla-very. Even some who try to justify this admit this was an act of "cruelty"and attempt to explain it away by claiming that "one must see Muham-mad's cruelty toward the Jews against the background of the fact thattheir scorn and rejection was the greatest disappointment of his life, andfor a time they threatened completely to destroy his prophetic author-ity."82 Even if this were so, two wrongs do not make a right. In any case,would this justify killing the men and making slaves of the women andchildren? 83 And, what is more, does this kind of activity exemplify a per-son who is supposed to be of flawless moral character, the model for allhumankind?

In spite of all this evidence against Muhammad being a perfect moralexample, Haykal, a noted defender of Islam, responds with the incredibleclaim that, even if "their claims were true, we would still refute them withthe simple argument that the great stand above the law" 0]. 84

SUMMARYIslam claims that Muhammad is the last of the prophets with the full

and final revelation of God (in the Qur'an). Muslims offer several thingsin support of this claim, such as predictions by Muhammad in theQur'an, the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, miracles performed byMuhammad, and his perfect moral character. However, as we have seen,the evidence for these falls far short of the claim to be supernaturaleither because there is no real evidence that the events actually hap-pened or because there was nothing really supernatural about the eventsthemselves.

81. Ibid., 439. As Dashti aptly observes, "Sometimes killings which were really motivat-ed either by desire to make a show of valor or by personal grudge were passed off as serviceto Islam" (Dashti, ibid., 101).

82. See Andrae, 155-56.83. Muslim attempts to defend against this charge usually involve the logical fallacy of

"diverting the issue" by claiming that Christian civilizations have done the same (seeHaykal, 237). Even if so, this does not justify the prophet's retaliatory killing of women. Onecan scarcely imagine Jesus doing or approving such a reprehensible deed.

84. See Haykal, 298, emphasis ours.


Of course, a Muslim can continue to accept this by faith. But to insistthat it is demonstrated by the evidence is another thing altogether. Andthe non-Muslim who agrees with the Socratic injunction that "the unex-amined life is not worth living" (and it may be added, "the unexaminedFaith is not worth believing") will no doubt look elsewhere to find a faithfounded on fact.

9

The Qur'an is at the heart of Islam. If its claims can be substantiated,then Islam is true and all opposing religious claims, including those of

Judaism and Christianity, are false. As we saw in Chapter 5, the Qur'anclaims to be the verbally inspired Word of God, copied from the originalin heaven. Furthermore, other religious claims to the contrary, theQur'an claims to be the full and final revelation of God through Muham-mad, the last and greatest of the prophets who supersedes Moses, Jesus,and all other prophets before him. It is of utmost importance, then, foranyone who rejects Islam to understand what Muslims claim about theQur'an and to examine the evidence Muslims offer in support of it.

A REVIEW OF THE I SLAMIC VIEW OF THE QUR 'AN

Before evaluating the Qur ' an 's claims about its own divine and uniqueauthority, it is necessary to review the basic claims about the nature ofthe Qur'an. These include its inspiration by God, its errorlessness, and itsfinality.

INSPIRATION OF THE QUR ' AN

The great Sunni authority, Abu Hanifa , expressed the orthodox beliefthat "the Quran is the word of God, and is His inspired word and revela-tion. It is a necessary attribute of God. It is not God, but still is inseparablefrom God." Of course, "It is written in a volume, it is read in a language .. .but God's word is uncreated." 1

1. Kitab al-Wasiyah, 77. Taken from Abdul-Haqq, 62. Also see Al-Maturidi's defense ofthe orthodox position against the Mutazilites in Williams, 182.

183


Muslim scholar, Yusuf K. Ibish declared: "It is not a book in the ordi-nary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testa-ments.... If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, youmust compare it with Christ Himself." He adds, "Christ was the expres-sion of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That iswhat the Qur'an is." 2 In short, whereas in Christianity the Word becameflesh, in Islam the Word became a Book! The Qur'an itself claims (in 39:1-2) "The revelation Of this Book Is from God, The Exalted in Power, Full ofWisdom. Verily it is We Who have Revealed the Book to thee In Truth." In55:1-2 it says, "(God) Most Gracious! It is He Who has Taught theQur'an. " (See also 3:7; 41:2-3; 12:1-2; 20:113; 25:6; 2:2-4; 43:43-44; 6:19;39:41.)

ERRORLESS AND ETERNAL

Of course, it would follow that if the Qur'an is the very Word of God, itwould be completely without error, since God cannot utter error. Indeed,this is precisely what the Qur'an claims for itself, saying, "Praise be toGod, Who hath sent to His Servant The Book, and hath allowed Thereinno Crookedness" (18:1). As we shall see, orthodox Muslims believe thisextends to everything the Qur'an teaches, even to matters of science.

Muslims also believe that the Qur'an is a copy from its original, theheavenly "Mother of the Book. " In 85:21-22, we read, "Nay, this is A Glo-rious Qur 'an, (Inscribed) in A Tablet Preserved! " And in 43:3-4, we read,"We have made it A Qur'an in Arabic, That ye may be able To understand(and learn wisdom). And verily, it is In the Mother of the Book, In OurPresence, high (In dignity), full of wisdom" (cf. 13:39). This eternal origi-nal is the template of the earthly book we know as the Qur'an.

FINAL REVELATION TO HUMANKIND

Muslims do not believe the Qur'an is simply one holy book amongother existing and uncorrupted divine revelations. The Qur'an is the eter-nal Word of God that descended (tanzil) to Muhammad in order to be thefinal Light and Guidance for humankind. According to orthodox Islam,the Qur'an by its very nature supersedes all previous revelations.

On many occasions the Qur'an refers to itself as a "Clear Argument"(al-Burhan), or "Light " (an-Nur), or "The Explanation" (al-Bayan).3 Infact, after its introduction (in sura 1), the Qur'an begins with this claim:"This is the Book: In it is guidance sure, without doubt, To those who fearGod " (2:2).

2. Waddy, 14.3. Ajijola, 104.

An Evaluation of the Qur'an 185

Abdul Ahad Dawud says of the finality of the Qur'an, "For after theRevelation of the Will and Word of Allah in the Holy Qur'an there is theend of the prophecy and of revelation." 4 In 10:37, we read: "'This Qur'an... is A confirmation of (revelations) That went before it, And a fullerexplanation Of the Book—wherein There is no doubt—From the Lord ofthe Worlds." Kateregga concludes, "the Qur'an, as the final revelation, isthe perfection and culmination of all the truth contained in the earlierScriptures (revelation)." Though sent in Arabic "it is the Book for alltimes and for all mankind. The purpose of the Qur'an is to guard the pre-vious revelations by restoring the eternal truth of Allah." 5 Classical Mus-lim theologian, Ibn Taymiyya, claimed that "the guidance and true reli-gion which is in the shari'a brought by Muhammad is more perfect thanwhat was in the two previous religious laws."6 In brief, the Qur'an isunique and the final revelation of God. "It is on account of these specialfeatures of the Qur'an that all the people of the world have been directedto have faith in it, to give up all other hooks and to follow it alone,because it contains all that is essential for living in accordance withGod's pleasure." 7

THE QUR 'AN IS A DIVINE MIRACLE

The Qur'an is not only the ultimate divine revelation, but for Muslims(including Muhammad himself), it is also the ultimate divine miracle.The "miracle of the Qur'an" is perhaps the most fundamental and popu-lar doctrine about the Qur'an. Indeed, Muhammad claimed that theQur'an was the only miracle he offered his hearers.

The miraculous nature of the Qur'an is in a sense the foundation ofIslam and the most essential evidence for the prophethood of Muham-mad. Classical theologian Al-Baqillani, in his book Ijaz al-Qur'an, insiststhat "What makes it necessary to pay quite particular attention to that[branch of Qur'anic] science [known as] Ijaz al-Qur'an is that the pro-phetic office of the Prophet—upon whom be peace—is built upon thismiracle."8

Muslim apologists have offered many arguments for the miraculousnature of the Qur'an. However, most Islamic scholars place moreemphasis on the first few arguments, especially the first one—the uniqueliterary style of the Qur'an.

4. Gudel, 35-36. Also see Dawud.5. Kateregga and Shenk, 27.6. Ibn Taymiyya, 350-69.7. See Ajijola, 96; cf. 94-96.8. Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, 54.


THE ARGUMENT FOR THE DIVINE ORIGINOF THE QUR 'AN

UNIQUE LITERARY STYLE

For most Muslims, by far the most impressive evidence for the super-natural nature of the Qur'an has been that it "is wonderfully arranged,and marvelously composed, and so exalted in its literary elegance as tohe beyond what any mere creature could attain." 9 By revelationMuhammad claimed that "this Qur'an is not such As can be producedBy other than God" (10:37). He boasts that "if the whole Of mankind andjinn Were to gather together To produce the like Of this Qur'an, theyCould not produce The like thereof, even if `They backed up each otherWith help and support " (17:88; cf. 2:118, 151, 253; 3:108; 28:86-87).

Yusuf Ali, the noted translator of the Qur'an, declares that "No humancomposition could contain the beauty, power, and spiritual insight ofthe Qur'an." 10 Muslims believe that "the Qur'an is the greatest wonderamong the wonders of the world. It repeatedly challenged the people ofthe world to bring a chapter like it, but they failed and the challengeremains unanswered up to this day." They believe that the Qur'an "issecond to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of thelearned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and sound-ness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind."

11

The Qur'an itself states the fundamental challenge to unbelievers in2:23: "And if ye are in doubt As to what We have revealed From time totime to Our servant, Then produce a Sura Like thereunto; And call yourwitnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, If your (doubts) aretrue " (cf. 10:38).

Concerning Muhammad's challenge to the unbelievers about pro-ducing a chapter like the Qur'an, the Muslim apologist, Ajijola, claimsthat "the diction and style of the Qur'an are magnificent and appropri-ate to its Divine origin." Above all, "the Qur'an has by virtue of its claimof Divine origin, challenged man to produce, even unitedly, just a fewlines comparable to those of the Qur'an." Hence, he adds, "The chal-lenge has remained unanswered to this day. . . . What a challenge thelike of which man has never seen and shall never see!"

12

9. See Jeffery, 57.10. See Gudel, 38. For a detailed explanation of the doctrine of the inimitability of the

Qur'an, see the article by AI-Rummani in Rippin and Knappert, Textual Sources for theStudy of Islam, 49-59.

11. Nehls, 38.12. Ajijola, 90.


In comparing the miracle of the Qur'an with those of other prophets,one defender of Islam went so far as to say that the miraculousness inthe composition of the Qur'an is more effective in its kind and more emi-nent than the healing of the horn-blind and the leprous and the quicken-ing of the dead and the changing of the rod into a serpent, etc." Why?"Since many may believe that these signs were accomplished by tricksand clever manipulations. But there can be no doubt about the miracu-lousness of the eloquence of the Qur'an, because eloquence is somethingnatural and not one of the skills which can be acquired.

"13

MUHAMMAD ' S ILLITERACY

This argument goes hand-in-hand with the former one. In fact, theyform a unit. In any event, the latter gives strength to the former. For Mus-lims argue that it is a marvel in itself that such a literary wonder as theQur'an was produced at all. But it is even more marvelous that it was writ-ten by someone who was illiterate. How else, they claim, could this beexplained except by supernatural revelation? The Qur'an says flatly thatMuhammad was an "unlettered Prophet" (7:157). Or, as Pickthall trans-lated it, Muhammad was "one who can neither read nor write."

Hence, Muslims believe that only by divine revelation could someonewho was illiterate produce such a literary masterpiece as the Qur'an. Toreinforce their claim they insist that even the best trained scholars in theArabic language cannot to this day equal the eloquence of the Qur'an.Muhammad's challenge still stands to the unbelievers: "Say [to them]:`Bring then A Sura like unto it– (10:38).

PERFECT PRESERVATION

Another evidence often given by Muslims for the miraculous nature ofthe Qur 'an is its marvelous preservation. As we read in 15:9, "We have,without doubt, Sent down the Message; And We will assuredly Guard it(from corruption)." Maulana Muhammad Ali claims that "the Qur'an isone, and no copy differing in even a diacritical point is met with in oneamong the four hundred millions of Muslims." While "there are, andalways have been, contending sects, but the same Qur'an is in the posses-sion of one and all.... A manuscript with the slightest variation in the textis unknown."

14

Muslim scholars point out that, in contrast to other holy hooks, "theHoly Qur'an is the only divinely revealed scripture in the history of man-kind which has been preserved to the present time in its exact original

13. AI-Baqillani, Miracle and Magic, 16.14. Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad and Christ (Lahore, India: The Ahmadiyya

Anjuman-i-lshaat-i-Islam, 1921), 7.


form." By this is meant that "the Qur'an has been preserved in the Arabicwording in which it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be onhim) and in the exact order in which he himself placed it as commandedby Divine revelation." 15 This unprecedented and unparalleled marvel ofperfect preservation is taken by Muslims as a sign of God's supernaturalintervention.

PROPHECIES IN THE QUR 'AN

Some Muslim defenders make a big point of the fact that the Qur'ancontains accurate predictions which, they claim, could only come bythe aid of God who knows all things, even the future. The prophecymost often cited is found in 30:2-4. It is claimed to have predicted thevictory of the Romans over the Persians "a few years" before it hap-pened. It reads as follows: "The Roman Empire . . . Will soon be victo-rious—Within a few years." Yusuf Ali claims that "a few years" meansa short period of time ranging from three to nine years. And the periodof time between when the Romans lost Jerusalem (A.D. 614-15) andtheir victory over the Persians at Issus (A.D. 622) was seven years. This,many Muslims claim, is proof of the supernatural nature of theQur 'an.

Another "prophecy" offered in defense of the miraculous nature ofthe Qur'an is in 89:1-5, which some scholars take to refer to the tenyears of persecution Islam suffered before the famous Hijrah of Mu-hammad to Medina. Other, less notable "fulfilled prophecies" are alsooffered by Muslim apologists. Most of these are promises to theIslamic forces that they will be victorious.

Say to those who reject Faith: "Soon will ye he vanquished And gatheredtogether To Hell,—an evil bed Indeed (to lie on)!" (3:12).

But their Lord inspired (This Message) to them: "Verily We shallcause The wrong-doers to perish! And verily We shall Cause you to abideIn the land, and succeed them" (14:13-14).

Soon will We [God] show them Our Signs in the (furthest) Regions (ofthe earth), and In their own souls, until It becomes manifest to themThat this is the Truth (41:53).

In his lengthy work The Religion of Islam, the Muslim scholarMuhammad Ali exuberantly claims that "we find prophecy afterprophecy announced in the surest and most certain terms to the effectthat the great forces of opposition should be brought to naught, thatthe enemies of Islam should be put to shame and perish . . . that Islam

15. Haneef , 18-19.


should spread to the farthest corners of the earth and that it shouldultimately be triumphant over all religions of the world.

"16

THE UNITY OF THE QUR ' AN

Muslims sometimes appeal to the self-consistency of the Qur'an as anevidence of its divine origin: "Do they [unbelievers] not consider TheQur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surelyHave found therein Much discrepancy" (4:82). Commenting on thisverse, Yusuf Ali claimed that "the unity of the Qur'an is admittedlygreater than that of any other sacred book. And yet how can we accountfor it except through the unity of God's purpose and design?" He adds,"From a mere human point of view we should have expected much dis-crepancy, because (1) the Messenger who promulgated it was not alearned man or philosopher, (2) it was promulgated at various times andin various circumstances, and (3) it is addressed to all grades of man-kind." Yet he believes that "it fits together better than a jig-saw puzzle."

17

Susanne Haneef insists that if we look at "its total consistency frombeginning to end ... it becomes impossible to ascribe the Qur'an tohuman authorship. "18

THE SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY OF THE QUR ' AN

Some contemporary defenders of Islam argue from its scientific accu-racy to its divine authority. This argument is gaining popularity in recenttimes, bolstered by a widely circulated book titled The Bible, The Qur'anand Science, by a French writer, Maurice Bucaille. The purpose of thebook is to show that while the Bible holds numerous internal and scien-tific contradictions, the Qur'an is free from such complications. Bucaillewrites,

The ideas in this study are to he developed from a purely scientific point ofview. They will lead to the conclusion that it is inconceivable for a humanbeing living n the Seventh century A.D. to have expressed assertions n theQur'an on highly varied subjects that do not belong to his period and forthem to be in keeping with what was to be revealed only centuries later. Forme, there can be no human explanation of the Qur'an. 19

In addition to Bucaille's book, there is now a host of such booksin Islamic countries (but with much less sophistication), which show

16. Muhammad All, The Religion of Islam (Lahore, Pakistan: The Ahmadiyyah AnjumanIsha ' at Islam, 1950), 249.

17. Yusuf Ali, Holy Qur'an, 205.18. See Gudel, 39.19. Bucaille, 130.


the miraculousness of the Qur'an as supported by the latest scientificdiscoveries.

THE AMAZING MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE OF THE QUR 'AN

One recently very popular proof for the Qur'an's divine origin isits alleged mathematical miraculousness. For example, the world-renowned Muslim debater, Ahmad Deedat, in his Miracle of the Qur'an,claims that the Qur'an is a mathematical miracle based on the numbernineteen. This number is chosen because it is the sum of adding up thenumerical value of the letters in the word "one," and the message of theQur'an is that God is one. 20 Rashad Khalifa, the Imam of the mosque ofTucson, Arizona, in his book The Computer Speaks: God's Message to theWorld, summarizes the argument in nineteen points (what else?). Hereare the first few:

(1) The opening statement of the Quran consists of nineteen arabicalphabets.

(2) The famous words that constituted the first Quranic revelationwere nineteen words.

(3) The last Quranic revelation consisted of nineteen words.(4) The Quran consists of 114 chapters, that is, 19 x 6. 21

What does all this prove? According to Khalifa, "The Quranic initialsand their mathematical distribution prove two things beyond a shadowof doubt: The Quran is the word of God and the Quran has been perfectlypreserved."22 Many mystical or esoteric sects of Islam also find interrela-tions among different mathematical numbers as a solid proof for theinspiration of the Qur'an.

CHANGED LIVES

One final proof for the Qur'an sometimes offered is that of thechanged lives and cultures that are considered a direct result of theQur'anic influence. In regard to this point, Ajijola writes,

The transformation wrought by the Holy Qur'an is unparalleled in the his-tory of the world and thus its claim to being unique stands as unchallengedtoday as it did thirteen centuries ago.... No faith ever imparted such a newlife to its votaries on such a wide scale—a life affecting all branches ofhuman activity; a transformation of the individual, of the family, of the

20. The Arabic word for one is wahid. In Arabic letters are used for numbers. The fourArabic letters of this word have numerical value that comes to a total of 19.

21. Rashad Khalifa, The Computer Speaks: Gods Message to the World (Tuscon: !man,Mosque of Tuscon, Arizona, U.S.A., 1981), 198, 200.

22. Khalifa, Quran: Visual Presentation of the Miracle, 200.


society, of the nation, of the country; and awakening material as well asmoral, intellectual as well as spiritual. The Qur'an effected a transforma-tion of humanity from the lowest depth of degradation to the highest pin-nacle of civilization within an incredibly short time where centuries of ref-ormation work had proved fruitless. 23

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE

The Islamic claim for the Qur'an is unparalleled by any other majorreligion. And the evidences offered for this claim are many and varied.They call for careful scrutiny by any thoughtful person interested in thetruth. We will treat the responses in the same order in which the evi-dences were presented above.

UNIQUE LITERARY STYLE

Is the Qur'an a miracle? Muhammad claimed it was, and most Mus-lims believe that, indeed, it was the only miracle he offered as proof of hisclaims to be a prophet. Before we evaluate this claim for the divine originof the Qur'an, it is necessary to understand what is meant by this kind ofmiracle.

Muslims use various terms for miracles. For Muslims a miracle isalways an act of God. It is not really a violation of nature, which is onlythe way God works customarily and repeatedly. Thus, miracles are seenas khawarik, "the breaker of usage." There are many words for miraclein Arabic, but the only one used in the Qur'an is ayah, a sign (2:118, 151,253; 3:108; 28:86-87). 24 The technical term used by Muslim scholars todesignate a miracle that confirms prophethood is mudjiza. To qualify itneeds to be (1) an act of God that cannot be done by any creature; (2)contrary to the customary course of things in that class; (3) aimed atproving the authenticity of that prophet; (4) preceded by the announce-ment of a forthcoming miracle; (5) carried out in the exact manner it wasannounced; (6) accomplished only through the hands of the prophet; (7)in no way contrary to his prophetic claim; (8) accompanied by a chal-lenge to reduplicate it; (9) by anyone present. Muslims believe thatMoses, Elijah, and Jesus performed miracles that fulfilled these crite-ria.25 The question is: Does the eloquence of the Qur'an meet these cri-teria? The answer is negative whether one considers either the form or

23. See Ajijola, ibid., 100-101.24.The discussion here follows that by Mark %V. Foreman in an excellent unpublished

paper on An Evaluation of Islamic Miracle Claims in the Life of Muhammad" (Liberty Uni-versity, Lynchburg, Va., 1991).

25.See "Mudjiza" in The Encyclopedia of Islam.


the content of the Qur'an. First, let's consider its alleged miraculous lit-erary form.

Eloquence is highly questionable as a test for divine inspiration. Atbest it only proves that Muhammad was extremely gifted. After allMozart wrote his first symphony at the age of six! In fact Mozart was evenmore talented, since his entire music corpus was produced before agethirty-five; Muhammad did not begin to produce the suras of the Qur'anuntil age forty. But what Muslim would say that Mozart's works aremiraculous like the Qur'an?

26If eloquence were the test, then a case

could be made for the divine authority of many literary classics. Homerwould qualify as a prophet for producing the Iliad and the Odyssey.Shakespeare is without peer in the English language. But Muslims wouldscarcely accept the challenge to produce a work like Romeo and Juliet orelse accept the divine inspiration of the works of Shakespeare.

Furthermore, the Qur'an is not unrivaled, even among works in Ara-bic. The Islamic scholar, C. G. Pfander, points out that "it is by no meansthe universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literarystyle of the Qur'an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic lan-guage." For example, "some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry itsurpasses the Mu'allaqat, or the Magamat or Hariri, though in Muslimlands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion."

27

The Iranian Shi'ite scholar Ali Dashti contends, however, that theQur'an possesses numerous grammatical irregularities. He notes that

The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelli-gible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabicwords, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectivesand verbs inflected without observance of the concord of gender andnumber; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which some-times have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are oftenremote from the subjects.

He adds, "these and other such aberrations in the language havegiven scope to critics who deny the Quran's eloquence.

"28He lists

numerous examples (74:1; 4:160; 20:66; 2:172, and so on), one of whichis "In verse 9 of sura 49 (ol-Hojorat), 'If two parties of believers havestarted to fight each other, make peace between them', the verb mean-ing 'have started to fight' is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in thedual like its subject 'two parties'." Anis A. Shorrosh lists other literaryflaws in the Qur'an. For example, in 2:177 he points out that the word

26. See Foreman, 14.27. Pfander, 264.28. Dashti, 48-49.


Sabireen in Arabic should have been Sabiroon because of its position inthe sentence. Likewise, Sabieen is more correct Arabic than Sabioon in5:69. Also, Shorrosh notes that there is " a gross error in Arabic " in 3:59.29

Dashti concludes: "to sum up, more than one hundred Quranic aberra-tions from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted. "30

To say the least, the Arabic of the Qur'an, while often eloquent, is neitherperfect nor unparalleled.

What is more, even some early Muslim scholars admitted that theQur'an was not perfect in its literary form. Dashti notes that "among theMoslem scholars of the early period, before bigotry and hyperbole pre-vailed, were some such as Ebrahim on-Nassam who openly acknowl-edged that the arrangement and syntax of the Quran are not miraculousand that works of equal or greater value could be produced by otherGod-fearing persons." Although some condemned this view (based ontheir interpretation of 17:90), other "pupils and later admirers of on-Nassam, such as Ebn Hazm and ol-Khayyat, wrote in his defense, andseveral other leading exponents of the Motazelite school shared hisopinion."

31

Even if the Qur'an were the most eloquent book in Arabic, this wouldhardly prove it has divine authority. For the same could be argued for themost eloquent book in Hebrew or Greek or any other language. AsPfander observed, "even were it proved beyond the possibility of doubtthat the Qur'an far surpassed all other books in eloquence, elegance,and poetry, that would no more prove its inspiration than a man'sstrength would demonstrate his wisdom or a woman's beauty her vir-tue."

32In other words, there is no logical connection between literary

eloquence and divine authority. The sovereign God (whom Muslimsaccept) could choose to speak in plain everyday language, if he wished.At best one might attempt to argue (unsuccessfully, I believe) 33 that ifGod said it, he would say it most eloquently. But even so it would be alogical fallacy to argue that simply because it is eloquent that God musthave said it.

29. Shorrosh, 199-200.30. See Dashti, 50. He notes also that Qur'anic scholars, like Mahmud oz-Zamakhshari

(A.D. 1075-1144), "have attempted in vain to explain them away but only by begging thequestion and presuming that the grammatical errors in it must be solved by changing therules of Arabic grammar" (51).

31. Ibid., 48.32. Pfander, 267.33. Even on the Muslim view of God's sovereignty (see Chapter 1), Allah could choose

to speak in whatever way he wished. No one can dictate to him the literary manner inwhich he must express himself.


Other religious leaders have given the beautiful literary style of theirwork as a sign of its divine origin. Would Muslims accept the inspirationof these works? For example, the Persian founder of the Manichaeans,Mani, "is said to have claimed that men should believe in him as the Par-aclete ["Helper" Jesus promised in John 14] because he produced a bookcalled Artand, full of beautiful pictures." Further, "he said that the bookhad been given him by God, that no living man could paint pictures equalin beauty to those contained in it, and that therefore it had evidentlycome from God Himself." 34 Yet no Muslim will accept this claim. Whythen should non-Muslims accept literary beauty as a valid test for divineauthority?

Finally, the beauty of the Qur'an is by no means an agreed conclusionof "all learned men." In fact many people in the West sympathize with thejudgment of Carlyle who said this of the Qur'an: "It is as toilsome readingas 1 ever undertook, a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite.Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through theKoran." For the readers who are not familiar with the content of theQur'an we will cite a few suras (rendered by the noted Muslim scholarYusuf Ali) and let the readers judge for themselves the truth about thealleged unsurpassed beauty of every sura of the Qur'an.

Sura 111:Perish the hand Of the Father of Flame! Perish he! No profit to him From

all his wealth, And all his gains! Burnt soon will he be In a Fire Of blazingFlame! His wife shall carry The (crackling) wood—As fuel!—A twisted ropeOf palm-leaf fibre Round her (own) neck!

Sura 109:Say: 0 ye That reject Faith! I worship not that Which ye worship, Nor will

ye worship That which I worship. And I will not worship That which ye havebeen Wont to worship, Nor will ye worship That which I worship. To you heyour Way, And to me mine.

Sura 105:Seest thou not How thy Lord dealt With the Companions Of the Ele-

phant? Did He not make Their treacherous plan Go astray? And He sentagainst them Flights of Birds, Striking them with stones Of baked clay. Thendid He make them Like an empty field Of stalks and straw, (Of which thecorn) Has been eaten up.

Sura 97:We have indeed revealed This (Message) In the Night of Power: And

what will explain To thee what the Night Of Power is? The Night of Power is

34. See Pfander, 264.


better than A thousand Months. Therein come down The angels and theSpirit By God's permission, On every errand: Peace! ... This Until the riseof Morn!

Sura 91:By the Sun And his (glorious) splendour; By the Moon As she follows

him; By the Day as it shows up (the Sun's) glory; By the Night as it Concealsit; By the Firmament And its (wonderful) structure; By the Earth And its(wide) expanse: By the Soul, And the proportion and order Given to it; Andits enlightment As to its wrong And its right; Truly he succeeds That purifiesit, And he fails That corrupts it! The Thamud (people) Rejected (theirprophet) Through their inordinate Wrong-doing. Behold, the most wickedMan among them was Deputed (for impiety). But the apostle of God Saidto them: "It is A She-camel of God! And (bar her not From) having herdrink!" Then they rejected him (As a false prophet), And they hamstrungher. So their Lord, on account Of their crime, obliterated Their traces andmade them Equal (in destruction High and low)! And for Him Is no fear Ofits consequences.

Those familiar with Arabic find these texts less than the most elegantexpressions in the history of literature and religion.

MUHAMMAD ' S ILLITERACY

Many Muslims contend that the content of the Qur'an is a proof of itsdivine origin. They insist that there is no way a hook with this messagecould have come from an illiterate prophet like Muhammad. Critics,however, offer the following reasons to the contrary.

Some question whether Muhammad was actually illiterate. As oneauthority notes, the Arabic words al umni, translated "the unlettered"prophet in the Qur'an (7:157), "may he [rendered] 'heathen' rather than'illiterate'." Pfander agrees, affirming that the Arabic phrase does notmean "'the Unlettered Prophet' but 'the Gentile Prophet' ... and doesnot imply illiteracy."35 Indeed, this is how the term is rendered in 62:2.

"He it is Who hath sent among gentiles (al umni)," as do several othersuras (2:73; 3:19, 69; 7:156).

There is some evidence to suggest that Muhammad may not havebeen completely illiterate. For example, "when the Treaty of Hudaibahwas being signed, Muhammad took the pen from Ali, struck out thewords in which Ali had designated him 'the apostle of God' and wroteinstead with his own hand the words, 'son of Abdu'llah.'" And "traditiontells us too that, when he was dying, Muhammad called for pen and ink,

35. Ibid., 254. Also see Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qu'ran, 33-34.

196 A Christian Response to Basic MuslimBeliefs

to write a command appointing his successor, but his strength failed himbefore writing-materials were brought."

36

Furthermore, W. Montgomery Watt informs us that "it is known thatmany Meccans were able to read and write, and there is therefore a pre-sumption that an efficient merchant, as Muhammad was, knew some-thing of the arts."37 Indeed, even Muslim scholars refer to Muhammad asbeing "perfect in intellect."38 Furthermore, even if Muhammad lackedformal training in earlier years, there is no reason why an intelligent per-son such as he could not have caught up on his own later. He would notbe the only "self-taught" literary figure in the history of humanity.

Even if it were granted that Muhammad was illiterate, it does not fol-low logically that the Qur'an was dictated to him by God. There are otherpossible explanations. Even if he was not formally trained, Muhammadwas a bright person possessing great skills. In addition, his scribe couldhave stylized it. This was not an uncommon practice at that time. Homerwas blind, so he probably did not write his epics himself. Finally, somecritics argue that it is possible that Muhammad's first impression wasright, that he received the information from a superintelligent evilspirit.39 In this event the Qur'an would not reflect Muhammad's intelli-gence but that of the spirit. In any event, it is not implausible that even aformally untrained person could have been the source of the Qur'an.

PERFECT PRESERVATION

Does perfect preservation prove divine inspiration? Qur'an critics givea negative answer for several reasons.

First, there is often serious overstatement as to the preservation of theQur'an. While it is true that the present Qur'an is generally a very goodcopy of the seventh-century Uthmanic recension, it is not true that this isexactly the way it came from Muhammad. 40 Many lines of evidence canbe offered in support of this conclusion.

(1) As was already pointed out (in Chapter 5), the Quran was originallymemorized by devout followers, most of whom where killed shortly afterMuhammad's death. According to early tradition, Muhammad's scribeswrote on pieces of paper, stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades, ribs, andbits of leather. Muslims believe that during the lifetime of Muhammadthe Qur'an was written down. But, according to the testimony of Zayd, a

36. Ibid., 255.37. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (reprint: London: Ox-

ford University Press, 1967), 40.38. See Gudel, 72.39. See Chapter 8 for a further discussion of this point.40. John Gilchrist, Jam' al-Qur'an: The Codification of the Qur'an Text- (Benoni, South

Africa: Jesus to the Muslims, 1989).


contemporary and follower of Muhammad, he was requested by AbuBakr to "search out the [various chapters and verses of] the Qur'an andgather it together." He responded, "Accordingly, I sought out the Qur'an:I gather it together from leafless palm-branches and thin white stonesand men's breasts. "41 Some time later, during the reign of Uthman, thethird Muslim Caliph, it was reported that several Muslim communitieswere using different versions of the Qur'an. Once again, Zayd was calledin to oversee the official revised version of the Qur'an. It is this versionthat has remained uniform and intact to this day, not any alleged originalversion that came directly from Muhammad.

(2) Noted European archaeologist Arthur Jeffery wrote a book titledMaterials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an in which he related thestate of the Qur'an text prior to its standardization under Uthman. Itreveals, contrary to Muslim claims, that there were several different textsprior to Uthman's revision.

Jeffery concludes that "when we come to the accounts of 'Uthman'srecension, it quickly becomes clear that his work was no mere matter ofremoving dialectical peculiarities in reading [as many Muslims claim],but was a necessary stroke of policy to establish a standard text for thewhole empire." Further, he adds, "there were wide divergences betweenthe collections that had been digested into Codicies in the great Metro-politan centres of Madina, Mecca, Basra, Kufa and Damascus." So "'Uth-man's solution was to canonize the Madman Codex and order all othersto be destroyed." Therefore, he concludes, "there can be little doubt thatthe text canonized by 'Uthman was only one among several types of textin existence at the time."

42

In agreement with this general observation, Watt in discussing thevariations between just two codices—that of ibn Masud of Rufa and ibnKa'b of Syria—writes, "No copies exist of any of the early codices, but thelist of variant readings from the two just mentioned is extensive, runningto a thousand or more items in both cases."

43

Recent discoveries confirm the textual corruption of the Qur'an. JaySmith has documented just how extensive these corruptions have been,thus undermining the traditional Islamic claim of an uncorrupted ver-sion of the Qur'an.

44

(3) Contrary to popular Islamic belief, not all Muslims today acceptone and the same version of the Qur'an. The Sunnite Muslims accept the

41. See Pfander, 258-59.42. See Jeffery, 7-8.43. Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, 45.44. See www.debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/contents and www.answeringis-

lam.org/quran /text/ index.


Sahih tradition of Masud, one of the few people authorized by Muham-mad to teach the Qur'an, as authoritative. Yet the Ibn Masud Codex ofthe Qur'an used by them has multitudinous variations from the Uth-manic recension. In the second sura alone there are nearly 150 varia-tions. It takes Jeffery some ninety-four pages to show the variationsbetween the two. He also demonstrates that the variant readings werenot just a matter of dialect, as many Muslims claim. For instance, someof the variations involve a whole clause and others omit complete sen-tences. Jeffery concludes that "it is quite clear that the text which 'Uth-man canonized was only one out of many rival texts ... [and' there isgrave suspicion that 'Uthman may have seriously edited the text hecanonized. "45

(4) Widely accepted Islamic tradition reveals certain things not foundin the present Qur'an. One tells us that A'isha, one of Muhammad'swives, said: "Among what was sent down of the Qur'an were ten wellknown (verses) about—Suckling, which prohibited: then they wereannulled by five well known ones. Then the Apostle of God deceased, andthey are what is recited of the Qur'an." 46 Another example of somethingnot found in today's Qur'an is what Umar said: "Verily God sent Muham-mad with the truth, and He sent down upon him the Book, accordinglythe Verse of Stoning was part of what God Most High sent Down: theApostle of God stoned, and we stoned after him, and in the Book of Godstoning is the adulterer's due."47 This original revelation was apparentlychanged and one hundred stripes has replaced stoning as the punish-ment for adultery (24:2).

(5) The so-called Satanic Verses illustrate another change in the origi-nal text. According to one version of these verses Muhammad had anearly revelation in Mecca, which allowed intercession to certain idols.

Did you consider al-hat and al-UzzaAnd al-Manat, the third, the other?Those are the swans exalted;Their intercession is expected;Their likes are not neglected."

Some time after this Muhammad received another revelation cancel-ing the last three lines (verses) and substituting what we now find in53:21-23, which omits the part about interceding to these pagan gods.

45. See Watt, ix-x.46. See Pfander, 256.47. Ibid ., 256.48. See Watt, 60.


According to Watt, both versions had been recited publicly. Muham-mad's explanation was that Satan had deceived him and inserted thefalse verses without his knowing it.

49

(6) Clair-Tisdall, famous worker among Muslims, points out that evenin the present Qur'an there are some variations.

Among various readings may be mentioned: (1) in Surah XXVIII, 48, someread "sahirani" for "sihrani": (2) n Surah XXXII, 6, after "ummahatuhum"one reading adds the words "wa hua abun lahum": (3) in Surah XXXIV, 18,

for "rabbana ba'id" some read "rabuna ba'ada": (4) in Surah XXXVIII, 22,for "tis'un" another reading is "tis'atun": (5) in Surah XIX, 35, for "tan-taruna" some read "yamtaruna".50

(7) Although Shi'ite Muslims are in the minority, they are the secondlargest Islamic sect in the world, with over one hundred million followers.They claim that Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many versesfrom the Qur'an that spoke of A1i. 51

L. Bevan Jones summed up the matter well in his book, The People ofthe Mosque, when he said: "while it may be true that no other work hasremained for twelve centuries with so pure a text, it is probably equallytrue that no other has suffered so drastic a purging." 52 The purging tookplace early and, hence, the Muslim claim that it has been preserved per-fectly since is misdirected.

(8) Even if the present Qur'an were a perfect word-for-word copy ofthe original as given by Muhammad, it would not prove the original wasinspired of God. All it would demonstrate is that today's Qur'an is a car-bon copy of whatever Muhammad said; it would say or prove nothingabout the truth of what he said. The Muslim claim that they have the truereligion, because they have the only perfectly copied Holy Book, is as log-ically fallacious as someone claiming it is better to have a perfect printingof a counterfeit thousand dollar bill than a slightly imperfect printing ofa genuine one! The crucial question, which Muslim apologists beg by thisargument, is whether the original is God's Word, not whether they pos-sess a perfect copy of it.

49. Ibid., 60-61.50. W. St. Clair Tisdall, A Manual of the Leading Muhammedan Objections to Christian-

ity (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1904), 60.51. Ibid., 59. Also see B. Todd Lawson, "Note for the Study of a 'Shi'i Qur'an," in Journal

of SemeticStudies (Autumn 1991), vol. 36, no. 2, 279-96.52. L. Bevan Jones, The People of the Mosque (London: Student Christian Movement

Press, 1932), 62.


PROPHECIES IN THE QUR ' AN

Does the Qur'an contain predictive prophecies that prove its divineorigin? Few outside the Muslim camp are convinced that there are reallyany unusual predictions made in the Qur'an, to say nothing of supernat-ural ones. Consider the following facts that undermine the alleged mirac-ulous nature of Qur'anic predictions.

First of all, most of the so-called supernatural predictions are notsupernatural at all. To begin with, what religious military leader is therewho might not say to his troops: "God is on our side; we are going to win.Fight on!"? Further, remembering that Muhammad is known as "theprophet of the Sword," with his greatest number of conversions comingafter he had forsaken the peaceful but relatively unsuccessful means ofspreading his message, it should be no surprise that he would predictvictory.

Also, considering the zeal of Muslim forces, who were promised Para-dise for their efforts (22:58-59; 3:157-58; 3:170-71), it is no surprise thatthey were so often victorious. Finally, it is little wonder why so many"submitted," considering Muhammad commanded that "The punish-ment of those Who wage war against God And His Apostle, and striveWith might ... Is: execution, or crucifixion, Or the cutting off of handsAnd feet from opposite sides, Or exile from the land" (5:36).

Second, the only really substantive prediction was about the Romanvictory over the Persian army at Issus (in 30:2-4), which reads: "TheRoman Empire Has been defeated—In a land close by: But they, (even)after (This) defeat of theirs, Will soon be victorious—Within a few years."Close scrutiny, however, reveals several things that make this predictionless than spectacular, to say nothing of supernatural.53 (1) According toAli "a few years" means three to nine years, but some argue that the realvictory did not come until thirteen or fourteen years after the prophecy.The defeat of the Romans by the Persians in the capture of Jerusalemtook place about A.D. 614 or 615. The counter-offensive did not beginuntil A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 625. This wouldbe at least ten or eleven years, not "a few" spoken by Muhammad.(2) Uthman's edition of the Qur'an had no vowel points (they were notadded until much later). 54 Hence, in this "prophecy" the word sayaghli-buna, "they shall defeat," could have been rendered, with the change oftwo vowels, sayughlabuna, "they shall be defeated."55 In fact, it is inter-

53. For this point and many others made in this section we are indebted to the excellentwork by Joseph Gudel in his master's thesis for Simon Greenleaf School of Law titled, To Ev-ery Muslim an Answer (April 1982), 54.

54. Spencer, 21.55. See Tisdall, 137.


esting to note that "a variant text reverses the passive and active verbs, sothat the Byzantines are said to have defeated (others) in the past, but areto be defeated in a few years." 56 (3) Even if this ambiguity were removed,the prophecy is less than spectacular, since it is neither long-range norunusual. One would have expected the defeated Romans to bounce hackin victory. It took little more than a perceptive reading of the trends oftime to forecast such an event. At best, it could have been a good guess.In any event, there appears to be no sufficient grounds for proving it issupernatural.

Finally, the only other alleged prophecy worth mentioning is found in89:2, where the phrase "By the Nights twice five" is taken by some to be aprediction of the ten years of persecution early Muslims experienced 57

But this is a far-fetched interpretation. Even the great Islamic scholar andtranslator of the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, admitted that "By the TenNights are usually understood the first ten nights of Zul-Hajj, the sacredseason of Pilgrimage.

"58In any event, there is certainly no clear predic-

tion of anything that would have been evident to an intelligent observerin advance of the event. 59 Its very usage as a predictive prophecy by Mus-lim scholars shows how desperate they are to find something supernatu-ral in support of the Qur'an.

THE UNITY OF THE QUR ' AN

Insisting that the Qur'an must be divine revelation because it is self-consistent and noncontradictory is also not convincing. Some criticsraise significant questions about how totally consistent the Qur'an is.For one thing, they point out that the most blatant contradiction inMuhammad's revelations came by way of later revelations expungingformer ones—such as the command to stone adulterers being changedto one hundred stripes (24:2), and the so-called Satanic Verses on wor-shiping pagan gods being replaced with some that omit this (53:21-23).

60

The whole concept of abrogation (mansukh) discussed earlier (inChapter 5) is one way some previous mistakes were corrected by laterverses (called nasikh). This is taught in 2:106 which says, "Such of Ourrevelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring (in place)one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do

56. Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, 14.57. Ahmad, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Quran, 374f.58. Yusuf All, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an, 1731, note 6109.59. By contrast, there are clear and specific predictive prophecies in the Bible that were

given hundreds of years in advance (see Chapter 10).60. See comments above, notes 47-48.


all things?" For example, what is called "the sword verse" (9:5) suppos-edly annuls 124 verses that originally encouraged tolerance (cf. 2:256).61

The Qur'an says emphatically, "Let there be no compulsion In reli-gions" (2:256), yet in other places it urges Muslims to "Fight those whobelieve not" (9:29) and "fight and slay The Pagans wherever ye findthem " (9:5).

A contradiction can also he found in the fact that the Qur'an claimsthat "no change there can be in the Words of God" (10:64), which Mus-lims say the Qur'an is. For "there is none That can alter the Words (andDecrees) of God" (6:34). Yet the Qur'an teaches the doctrine of abroga-tion by which later revelations annul previous ones. We read of (2:106)"revelations . . . We abrogate or cause to be forgotten." Further, Muham-mad admits that "we substitute one revelation For another," admitting inthe same verse that his contemporaries called him a "forger" for so doing!

As Nehls keenly observes, "we should like to find out how a divine rev-elation can be improved. We would have expected it to have been perfectand true right from the start." 62 Of course, some Muslims, like Ali, claimthat abrogation is just "progressive revelation," adapting God's messageto different people living at different periods of time. Nehls points out,however, that "2:106 [on abrogation) does not speak of culture or pro-gressive revelation with reference to scriptures given prior to Moham-med, but to Quranic verses only!" 63 It makes sense to believe that Godprogressively revealed himself over 1,500 years of time (as in the Bible).However, Nehls adds, "we find it unacceptable that within a space of 20years a need for change or correction can become necessary. This surelysuggests that either God is not all-knowing or else the recorder made cor-rections." 64 This seems particularly true in view of the fact that the cor-rected verses are often near the ones being corrected. What is more, thereare verses that the Qur'anic abrogations apparently forgot to redact. In7:54 (and 32:4) we are told that the world was made in six days. But in41:9—12 it says it took God a total of eight days to create the world (twoplus four plus two). But both cannot be correct.

65

61. This point is made by Shorrosh, 163.62. See Nehls, 11.63. Ibid., 12.64. Ibid., 14.65. Even the Muslim commentator Ali admits "this is a difficult passage." He and oth-

er commentators attempt to explain the t wo days (Sura 41:9), four days (v. 10), and the twodays (v. 12) = eight days by making the four days overlap with the first two days. However ,this is unconvincing for several reasons. First, why spell them out as separate events ifthey are the same? Further, they describe different acts of creation. The first speaks of thecreation of "the earth in two days" (v. 9) and the second of "all things to give them nour-ishment in due proportion in four days" (v. 10). These are presented as different and suc-cessive events.


The Qur'an also claims that humans are responsible for their ownchoices (18:29), yet it also claims that God has sealed the fate of all inadvance. "Every man's fate We have fastened On his own neck: On theDay of Judgment We shall bring out For him a scroll, Which he will seeSpread open " (17:13; also see 10:99-100).

Again, even if the Qur'an were consistent, at best unity or self-consis-tency is only a negative test for truth, not a positive one. Of course, if abook is from God who cannot err, then it won't have any contradictionsin it. However, just because a book has no contradictions does not meanGod is the author. It is a logical fallacy66 to assume so. As John W. Mont-gomery insightfully observes, Euclid's geometry is self-consistent, butthis is no ground to call it divinely authoritative.67

Self-consistency is the same kind of argument others (like some Chris-tians) use for their Holy Books that oppose the Qur'an on many points.But both cannot be true. Hence, unity in itself does not prove divineauthenticity. Both the Jewish Bible and the New Testament, knownthrough existing manuscripts, are at least as equally self-consistent as theQur 'an. But no Muslim would admit they are thereby inspired of God.

SCIENTIFIC ACCURACYThis argument has gained popularity in recent times, primarily due to

Bucaille's book The Bible, The Qur 'an and Science, in which Christianityis attacked for holding back the progress of science and the Qur'an isexalted as promoting science. Indeed, he insists that the Qur'an marvel-ously foreshadowed modern science in many of its statements, thusmiraculously confirming its divine origin. Here again Muslim apologistsare misdireced in their overzealous attempt to prove the divine origin ofthe Qur'an.

The first thing perceptive critics note is that it was Christianity, notIslam, that was the mother of modern science. The great philosopher,Alfred North Whitehead, declared in his famous work Science and the

Modern World that Christianity is the mother of science. M. B. Foster,writing for the prestigious English philosophy journal Mind noted thatthe Christian doctrine of creation is the origin of modern science 6 8 The

66. In logic it is called an illicit conversion of an "A" (universal affirmative) proposition.For example, just because All dogs are four-legged animals" does not mean that "All four-legged animals are dogs."

67. John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1978), 94.

68. M. R. Foster, "The Christian Doctrine of Creation and the Rise of Modern Science,"in Mind (1934), vol. 43, 447-68; and Alfred North Whitehead, Science in the Modern World(New York: The Free Press, 1925), 13-14. See also Stanley L. Jaki, The Savior of Science (Ed-inburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1990).


very founders of almost every area of modern science were men workingfrom a Christian worldview. This includes men like Copernicus, Kepler,Kelvin, Newton, Pascall, Boyle, Maxwell, Agassiz, and others. 69

So while Islamic monotheism made many contributions to modernculture, it is an overstatement for it to claim credit for the origin of mod-ern science. In fact, many Islamic critics point out that Muslim armiesdestroyed vast resources of knowledge. Pfander, for example, notes thatunder the Caliph Umar the Muslim soldiers destroyed both the vastlibraries at Alexandria and Persia. When the general asked Umar what heshould do with the books, he is said to have replied: "Cast them into therivers. For, if in these books there is guidance, then we have still betterguidance in the Book of God. If, on the contrary, there is in them thatwhich will lead astray, then may God protect us fromthem."70

It is a serious mistake to assume that a book is inspired simplybecause it conforms with modern science. Both Muslim and Christianapologists have made this error. There are many reasons why theseclaims are invalid. (1) Science changes. Thus, what appears to be "har-mony" between them today may vanish tomorrow. (2) Many embarrass-ing mistakes have been made by defenders attempting to see modernscientific theories in their Holy Book. The Roman Catholic Church'streatment of Galileo is only one example. 71 (3) Even if perfect harmonycould be demonstrated between the Qur'an and scientific fact, thiswould not prove the divine inspiration of the Qur'an. It would simplyprove that the Qur'an made no scientific error. Simply because a book isfree of scientific error does not make it inspired of God. At best, scientificaccuracy is only a negative test for truth. If error were found in theQur'an, it would prove that it was not the Word of God. But simplybecause the Qur'an were shown to be scientifically faultless would notprove that it was the Word of God. And, of course, the same applies to theBible or any other religious book.

Some critics question just how scientifically accurate the Qur'an reallyis. Take, for example, the Qur'an's highly controversial statement thathuman beings are formed from a clot of blood: "Then We made thesperm Into a clot of congealed blood; Then of that clot We made A (foe-tus) lump; then We Made out of that lump Bones and clothed the bonesWith flesh" (23:14). This is scarcely a scientific description of embyronic

69. Norman L. Geisler, Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Contro-versy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 37-52.

70. See Pfander, 365.71. Even in Galileo's case it should be observed that he was a Christian working from a

Christian perspective that the world is God's creation and should be so studied. It was theRoman Catholic Church that made the mistake in condemning him, not the Christianworldview that led Galileo to his scientific discoveries.


development. In order to avoid the problem, Bucaille retranslates theverse, rendering the Arabic word alaq ("blood clot") as "the thing whichclings."72 However, this is questionable. It is contrary to recognizedIslamic authorities who did three major English translations of theQur'an: Ali, Pickthall, and Arberry . Further, Bucaille himself recognizedthat "a majority of translations describe ... man's formation from a'blood clot' or 'adhesion'." 73 This leaves the impression that his ownhomemade translation was generated to solve the problem, since he rec-ognizes that "a statement of this kind is totally unacceptable to scientistsspecializing in this field."

74

Likewise, other critics note that the Qur'an in 18:86 speaks of onetraveling west "till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, hefound it setting in a muddy spring." But even in his attempt to explainthis problem, Ali admits this has "puzzled Commentators." Nor does hereally explain the problem but simply asserts that this cannot be "theextreme west, for there is no such thing. "75 Indeed, there is no extremewest, nor can anyone traveling west eventually come to the place wherethe sun sets. But this is what the text says, unscientific as it may be.

Others have noted that the so-called scientific foreshadowing of theQur'an is highly questionable. Kenneth Cragg notes that "it has beenfrequently claimed by some Muslim exegetes of the Quran that moderninventions and scientific data, even nuclear fission, have been antici-pated there and can now be detected in passages not hitherto appreci-ated for their prescience. Meanings earlier unsuspected disclose them-selves as science proceeds." This conclusion, however, "is stronglyrepudiated by others as the kind of corroboration the Qur'an, as a 'spir-itual' Scripture, neither needs nor approves.... Muhammad KamilHusain called all such exegesis 'pseudo'.... Fazlur Rahman ... alsodeplored it."76

Finally, even if the Qur'an were proven to be scientifically accurate,it would not thereby make it divinely authoritative. All it would prove isthat the Qur'an made no scientific blunders. This would not be unpar-alleled. Some Jewish scholars claim the same for the Torah, and manyChristians claim exactly the same thing for the Bible, using very similararguments. But Bucaille would not allow that this thereby dem-onstrates that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God.

72. See Bucaille, 204.73. Ibid., 198.74. Ibid.75. Yusuf All, Holy Qur 'an, 754, note 2430.76. Cragg, "Contemporary Trends in Islam," in Woodberry, 42.


AMAZING MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE

One popular proof for the Qur'an's divine origin is its alleged mathe-matical miraculousness based on the number nineteen. Needless to saysuch an apologetic method does not find a great deal of acceptance inscholarly circles, and this for good reason.

No Muslim would accept a message claimed to be from God if it taughtidolatry or immorality. In fact no message containing such claims shouldbe accepted on mathematical grounds alone. So even if the Qur'an werea mathematical "miracle," this would not be sufficient to prove that itwas of God.

77

Even if the odds are astronomic against the Qur'an having all theseamazing combinations of the number 19, it proves nothing more thanthat there is a mathematical order behind the language of the Qur'an.Since language is an expression of the order of human thought, and sincethis order can often be reduced to mathematical expression, it should beno surprise that a mathematical order can be found behind the languageof the Qur'an.

Further, the same kind of argument (only based on the number seven)could be used to prove the inspiration of the Bible. Take the first verse ofthe Bible "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."Nehls points out that:

The verse consists of 7 Hebrew words and 28 letters (7x4). There are threenouns: "God, heavens, earth " .... their total numeric value . . . is 777 (7x11).The verb "created " has the value 203 (7x29). The object is contained in thefirst three words—with 14 letters (7x2). The other four words contain thesubject—also with 14 letters (7x2) land soon].7H

But no Muslim would allow this as an argument in favor of the divineinspiration of the Bible. At best the argument is esoteric and unconvinc-ing. Even most Muslim scholars avoid using it.

CHANGED LIVES

Many Muslim apologists point to the transformation of lives and cul-ture by the Qur'an as a proof of its divine origin. But critics point out thatthis is an insufficient test for its alleged heavenly origin.

First of all, this is the kind of thing that should be expected. For whenone fervently believes something to be true he lives by it. But this still

77. For a further discussion of this and other arguments critiqing this view, see Nehls,124-32.

78. Ibid., 127. For a Christian approach to the mathematical structure of the Bible, seeJerry Lucas and Del Washburn, Theomatics: God's Best Kept Secret Revealed (New York:Stein & Day Pub., 1977).


leaves open the question as to whether it is the Word of God. Any set ofideas fervently believed and applied will transform believers and theirculture. This is true whether the ideas are Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, orJewish. But this simple fact does not prove that God inspired all theirHoly Books. What Muslim would accept the argument that Karl Marx'sDas Capital is inspired because it has transformed millions of lives andmany cultures?

Many critics find it no surprise that so many converted to Islam whenit is remembered what the promised reward was for those who did andthe threatened punishment for those who fought against Muhammad.Those who "submitted" were promised Paradise with beautiful women(2:25; 4:57). But "the punishment of those Who wage war against GodAnd His Apostle, and strive With might ... Is: execution, or crucifixion, Orthe cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, Or exile from theland" (5:36). Islamic tradition reports that Muhammad gave the follow-ing exhortation to his followers: "The sword is the key of heaven and ofhell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is ofmore avail than two month's fasting and prayer. Whoever falls in battle,his sins are forgiven at the day of judgement. "79 Furthermore, humangreed played a part. "Arab warriors were ... entitled to four-fifths of allthe booty they gathered in the form of movable goods and captives." 80

What is more, it was of great advantage for the enemy to submit. Polythe-ists had two choices: submit or die. Christians and Jews had anotheralternative: they could pay heavy taxes (9:5, 29). Also Islamic conquestswere successful because in some of the conquered lands the people werefed up with the maltreatment of their Roman rulers and willinglyaccepted Islam due to its emphasis on equality and brotherhood.

Anis Shorrosh summarizes several reasons why Islam spread soquickly among Arabic people. These include the fact that Islam glorifiedArabic people, customs, and language; it provided an incentive to con-quer and plunder other lands; it utilized their ability to fight in the desert;it provided a heavenly reward for dying, and it adopted many pre-Islamicpractices. 81 Even if one points to more positive reasons, such as, moral,political, and cultural improvements, there seems to be no reason toposit anything but natural causes for the spread of Islam.

Finally, if one is going to press the argument from changed lives,defenders of Christianity offer one that would seem to be equally strong,

79. Edward Gibbon, the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 5, ed.J. B. Bury (London: Methuen & Co., 1898), 360-61.

80. John B. Noss, Man 's Religions (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1956), 711.81. See Shorrosh, 180-83.


if not stronger. In his famous Evidences of Christianity, William Paleysums it up this way:

For what are we comparing? A Galilean peasant accompanied by a few fish-ermen with a conqueror at the head of his army. We compare Jesus, with-out force, without power, without support, without one external circum-stance of attraction or influence, prevailing against the prejudices, thelearning, the hierarchy, of his country, against the ancient religious opin-ions, the pompous religious rites, the philosophy, the wisdom, the author-ity, of the Roman empire, in the most polished and enlightened period ofits existence,—with Mahomet making his way amongst Arabs; collectingfollowers in the midst of conquests and triumphs, in the darkest ages andcountries of the world, and when success in arms not only operated by thatcommand of men's wills and persons which attend prosperous undertak-ings, but was considered as a sure testimony of Divine approbation. Thatmultitudes, persuaded by this argument, should join the train of a victori-ous chief; that still greater multitudes should, without any argument, bowdown before irresistible power—is a conduct in which we cannot see muchto surprise us; in which we can see nothing that resembles the causes bywhich the establishment of Christianity was effected. 82

THE RAPID SPREAD OF ISLAM

The last of the major "proofs" offered by Muslim apologists thatMuhammad is a prophet of God is the rapid growth of Islam. Accordingto one Muslim apologist, "the rapid spread of Islam shows that God MostHigh sent it as His final revelation to men."83

First, it is a highly disputed test for truth that is not widely accepted orvery convincing. Further, it is a double-edged test for truth. According tothe earliest records (in the Book of Acts), Christianity also spread veryrapidly immediately after Christ. And in spite of a couple centuries ofRoman persecution, Christianity took over the remains of the RomanEmpire. Third, unlike Christianity, Islam did not spread very quickly atthe very beginning (see Chapter 4). Initially, Muhammad attracted veryfew followers. It was only after Muhammad began to use the sword indefense of Islam that it grew more rapidly—scarcely a convincing proofof its divine origin. Of course, Christian crusaders (twelfth-fourteenthcenturies) also engaged in an equally unjustified use of the sword, since

82. William Paley, Evidences of Christianity (London: 1851), 257. Many Muslim criticsargue that the spread of Christianity in many lands was certainly not always due to peacefulpropaganda but also through the use of wars. While this may be true of some later periods,such as the Crusades, it certainly was not true of early Christianity (first to third centuries)when it grew from 120 (Acts 1-2) to the dominant spiritual force in the Roman world beforeConstantine was converted in A.D. 313.

83. See Pfander, 226.


Jesus forbid his disciples to spread his message this way (Matt. 26:52).However, by contrast with Islam, the early and phenomenal growth ofChristianity occurred without the use of the sword. Indeed, early Chris-tianity grew the most when the Roman government was using the swordon Christians during the first three centuries.

As the great Yale church historian of the twentieth century, KennethScott Latourette, points out, "It is one of the commonplaces of historythat in its first three centuries Christianity met persistent and oftensevere persecution, persecution which rose to a crescendo early in thefourth century, but that it spread in spite of opposition and was evenstrengthened by it. "84 Also as Latourette explains, "One of the factors towhich is attributed the triumph of Christianity is the endorsement ofConstantine. But, as we have suggested, the faith was already so strong bythe time when Constantine espoused it that it would probably have wonwithout him. Indeed, one of the motives sometimes ascribed to his sup-port is his supposed desire to enlist the cooperation of what had becomethe strongest element in the Empire, the Christian community. "85

Finally, there are perfectly natural incentives for the many converts toIslam. Muslim soldiers were promised Paradise as a reward for dying.And the people who did not submit to Islam were threatened with death,slavery, or taxation. There is no need to appeal to the supernatural toaccount for the growth of Islam under these conditions.

Islamic scholar Wilfred Cantwell Smith pinpoints the Muslim dil-emma well. He incisively points out that if Muslims believe Islam is God-willed and destined to dominate the world, then its failure to do so mustbe an indication that God's sovereign will is being frustrated. But Mus-lims deny that God's will can be frustrated. Hence, logically they mustconclude that it is not God-willed. Haykal's response that men are freeand any defeat or setbacks are to he attributed to them misses thepoint. 86 For it does not matter how God does it, through freedom or with-out it, if in fact God has willed the supremacy of Islam, then his sovereignwill has been frustrated. For Islam is not and has not been since the timeof its inception the enduring dominant religion of the world numerically,spiritually, or culturally. Furthermore, even if Islam should have a sud-den burst of success and surpass all other religions this would not proveit is of God. Logically, all that success proves is that it succeeded, not nec-essarily that it is true. For even after something succeeds we can still ask:Are its beliefs true or false?

84. Kenneth Scott Latourette , A History of Christianity: Beginning to 1500 (San Fran-cisco: Harper, 1975), 1:81.

85. Ibid., 105.86. See Haykal, 605.


SUMMARY

The Qur'an claims to be the Word of God, but it does not prove to bethe Word of God. It has claims without supporting credentials. None ofthe arguments offered by its apologists is convincing. Each contains fal-lacies. Of course one can continue to believe in the divine origin of theQur'an without evidence to support it. But those who seek a reasonablefaith will have to look elsewhere. Further, it lacks the very distinguishingcharacteristic it believes both Judaism and Christianity possess, namely,supernatural confirmation by God.

Part Three

A POSITIVE DEFENSE OF THECHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

In Part One we set forth the basic doctrines of orthodoxIslam. Part Two evaluated basic Muslim beliefs, pointing out mis-understandings, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies. In this finalsection we will offer a positive defense of the Christian point ofview over and against Islam. This will be done by way of a rationaldefense of crucial Christian beliefs, such as the authenticity of theBible, the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and salvationthrough Christ's death on the cross for our sins.

10A DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE

In order to support their claim that the Qur'an is the inspired word ofGod, superseding all previous revelations, Muslims sustain an attackupon all competing claims. For the most part their efforts are directedagainst their chief rival, the Bible. Their accusations fall into two basiccategories: first, the text of Scripture has been changed or forged; second,doctrinal mistakes have crept into Christian teaching, such as the beliefin the incarnation of Christ, the trinity of the Godhead, and the doctrineof originalsin.1

Strangely, sometimes the Qur'an gives the Judeo-Christian Scripturessuch noble titles as: "the Book of God," "the Word of God," "a light andguidance to man," "a decision for all matters," "a guidance and mercy,""the lucid Book," "the illumination (al-furqan )," "the gospel with itsguidance and light, confirming the preceding Law," and "a guidance andwarning to those who fear God." 2 Christians are told to look into theirown Scriptures to find God's revelation for them (5:50). And evenMuhammad himself at one point is exhorted to test the truthfulness ofhis own message with the contents of the previous divine revelations toJews and Christians (10:94).

However, the above praise for the Bible is misleading, since Muslimshasten to claim that the Qur'an supersedes all previous revelations basedon their concept of progressive revelation. By this they hope to show thatthe Qur'an fulfills, and even sets aside the previous, less complete revela-tions (such as the Bible). One Islamic theologian echoes this convictionby stating that while a Muslim needs to believe in the Torah (Law of

1. Waardenburg, 261-63.2. Takle, 217.

213

21 4 A Positive Defense of the Christian Perspective

Moses), the Zabur (the Psalms of David), and the Injil (Gospel), neverthe-less he claims that "according to the most eminent theologians" thebooks in their present state "have been tampered with." He goes on tosay, "It is to be believed that the Qur'an is the noblest of the books. . . . Itis the last of the God-given scriptures to come down, it abrogates all thebooks which preceded it. . . . It is impossible for it to suffer any change oralteration." 3 Even though this is the most common view among Islamicscholars, still many Muslims claim to believe in the sacredness and truth-fulness of the present-day Bible. This, however, is largely lip service ontheir part, since due to their firm belief in the all-sufficiency of theQur'an, very few ever study the Bible.

CHARGES AGAINST THE OLD TESTAMENT

Muslims often show a less favorable view of the previous Scriptures,mainly due to the distortions imposed on them by the teachers of theLaw. The charges against people of the Book and their tampering with theScriptures include: concealing God's Word (2:42; 3:71), verbally distort-ing the message in their books (3:78; 4:46), not believing in all the parts oftheir Scriptures (2:85), and not knowing what their own Scriptures reallyteach (2:78). Even though in their historical contexts most of thesecharges were directed against the Jews, by implication Muslims have alsoincluded Christians in the above criticisms.

Due to the above ambiguities in the Qur'anic accounts, Muslims holdvarious views (that are sometimes in conflict) regarding the Bible. Forinstance, the well-known Muslim reformer, Muhammad Abduh writes,"The Bible, the New Testament and the Qur'an are three concordantbooks; religious men study all three and respect them equally. Thus thedivine teaching is completed, and the true religion shines across the cen-turies." 4 Another Muslim author tries to harmonize the three great worldreligions in this way: "Judaism lays stress on Justice and Right: Christian-ity, on Love and Charity: Islam, on Brotherhood and Peace."5 However,the most typical Islamic approach to this subject is characterized bycomments of the Muslim apologist, Ajijola:

The first five books of the Old Testament do not constitute the originalTorah, but parts of the Torah have been mingled up with other narrativeswritten by human beings and the original guidance of the Lord is lost inthat quagmire. Similarly the four Gospels of Christ are not the original Gos-pels as they came from Prophet Jesus ... the original and the fictitious, the

3. Jeffery, Islam, Muhammad and His Religion, 126-28.4. Dermenghem, 138.5. Waddy, 116.

A Defense of the Bible 215

Divine and the human are so intermingled that the grain cannot be sepa-rated from the chaff. The fact is that the original Word of God is preservedneither with the Jews nor with the Christians. Qur'an, on the other hand, isfully preserved and not a jot or tittle has been changed or left out in it. 6

These charges bring us once again to the Islamic doctrine of tahrif, orcorruption of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Based on some of the aboveQur'anic verses and, more important, exposure to the actual contents ofother scriptures, Muslim theologians have generally formulated two dif-ferent responses. According to Nazir-Ali, "the early Muslim commenta-tors (e.g., Al-Tabari and Ar-Razi ) believed that the alteration istahrif bi'al

ma'ni , a corruption of the meaning of the text without tampering with thetext itself. Gradually, the dominant view changed to tahrif bi'al-lafz, cor-ruption of the text itself." 7 The Spanish theologians Ibn-Hazm, and Al-Biruni, along with most Muslims, uphold this view.

Another Qur'anic scholar claims that "the biblical Torah was appar-ently not identical with the pure tawrat given as a revelation to Moses,but there was considerable variation in opinion on the question towhat extent the former scriptures were corrupted." On the one hand,"Ibn-Hazm, who was the first thinker to consider the problem of tab-dil [change] systematically, contended . . . that the text itself had beenchanged or forged (taghyr, and he drew attention to immoral storieswhich had found a place within the corpus." On the other hand, "

Ibn-Khaldun held that the text itself had not been forged but that Jews andChristians had misinterpreted their scripture, especially those textswhich predicted or announced the mission of Muhammad and thecoming of Islam."8

Whether a Muslim scholar shows more or less respect for the Bible,and whether or how he will quote from it depends on his particular inter-pretation of tabdil. Ibn-Hazm, for instance, rejects nearly the whole OldTestament as a forgery, but cheerfully quotes the tawrat when badreports are given of the faith and behavior of the Banu Isra'il as proofsagainst the Jews and their religion.

CHARGES AGAINST THE NEW TESTAMENT

Noted Muslim commentator Yusuf Ali contends that "the Injil spokenof by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels nowreceived as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, wasrevealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the

6. Ajijola, 79.7. Nazir-Ali, 46.8. Waardenburg, 257.

216 A Positive Defense of the Christian Perspective

received canonical Gospels and in some others of which traces survive." 9

Direct allegations against New Testament and Christian teaching aremade. These include the charges that there have been a change and forg-ery of textual divine revelation, and that there have been doctrinal mis-takes such as the belief in the incarnation of Christ, the trinity of the God-head, and the doctrine of original sin. 10

Another important debate among Muslim theologians on this point isthe question of the eternal destiny of people of the Book. Although theaverage Muslim might consider anyone who has been a "good person"worthy of eternal salvation, accounting for all the Qur'anic evidences onthis subject has created much uncertainty.

Among the classical orthodox theologians, Jews and Christians weregenerally regarded as unbelievers (kafar), because of their rejection ofMuhammad as a true prophet from God. For example, in the Qur'aniccommentary of Tabari, one of the most respected Muslim commentatorsof all time, we notice that even though the author distinguishes betweenthe people of the book and the polytheists (mushrikun), and expresses ahigher opinion of the former, he clearly declares that the majority of Jewsand Christians are in unbelief and transgression because of their refusalto acknowledge Muhammad's truthfulness.

11

Added to this is the charge against Christian belief in the divinity ofChrist as the Son of God, a belief that amounts to committing the unpar-donable sin of shirk, and is emphatically condemned throughout theQur'an. The condemnation of Christians is captured in 5:75: "They doblaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary'.... Whoever joinsother gods with God, God will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will behis abode. "

On the other hand, the contemporary Muslim theologian, Fazlur Rah-man, goes against what he admits is "the vast majority of Muslim com-mentators." He champions the opinion that salvation is not acquired byformally joining the Muslim faith, but as the Qur'an points out, by believ-ing in God and the last day and doing good deeds. 12 The debate contin-ues and each individual Muslim can take a different side of this issuebased on his own understanding of the matter. 13

9. A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, 287.10. See Waardenburg, 261-63.1 I . Antes, 104-5. Also see Islamochristiana, 1980, vol. 6, 105-48.12. Willman, 166-67. Of course, his views are considered unorthodox by traditional

Muslims.13. Regarding the salvation of other groups such as Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastri-

ans, Muslim opinion also varies. Some Muslims view these religions as being originallysimilar to Islam and from God but no longer true to their origin, while others reject them asfalse religions from the very beginning (see also Chapter 6).


A RESPONSE TO ISLAMIC CHARGES

These Islamic views about the Bible are critically flawed. One evidenceis the internal inconsistency within the Muslim view of Scripture itself.Another is that it is contrary to the factual evidence.

There is serious tension in the Islamic rejection of the authenticity ofthe current New Testament. This tension can be focused by the followingteachings from the Qur'an:

• The original New Testament ("Gospel") is a revelation of God (5:46,67, 69, 71).

• Jesus was a prophet and his words should be believed by Muslims(4:171; 5:78). As the Muslim scholar Mufassir notes, "Muslimsbelieve all prophets to be truthful because they are commissionedin the service of humanity by Almighty God (Allah)."

14

• Christians were obligated to accept the New Testament of Muham-mad's day (seventh century A.D., 10:94).

In this sura Muhammad is told: "If thou wert in doubt As to what Wehave revealed Unto thee, then ask those Who have been reading TheBook [the Bible] from before thee; The truth hath indeed come To theefrom thy Lord; So be in no wise Of those who doubt." Abdul Haqq notesthat "the learned doctors of Islam are sadly embarrassed by this verse,referring the prophet as it does to the people of the Book who would solvehis doubts." 15 One of the strangest interpretations is that the sura is actu-ally addressed to those who question his claim. Others claim that "it wasMuhammad himself who is addressed, but, however much they changeand turn the compass, it ever points to the same celestial pole—thepurity and preservation of the Scriptures." However, Haqq adds, "Ifagain, we take the party addressed to be those who doubted the truth ofIslam, this throws open the whole foundation of the prophet's mission;regarding which they are referred to the Jews [or Christians] for ananswer to their doubts; which would only strengthen the argument forthe authority of the Scripture—a result the Muslim critics would hardlybe prepared for."

16

Christians respond to this verse by making two crucial points. First,Muhammad would not have asked them to accept a corrupted version ofthe New Testament. Second, the New Testament today is substantially

14. Sulaiman Shahid Mufassir, Jesus, a Prophet of Islam (Indianapolis: American TrustPublications, 1980), i.

15. Abdul-Haqq, 23. Taken from W. Muir, The Beacon of Truth (London: The ReligiousTract Society), 1894.

16. See Abdul-Haqq, 100.

21 8 A Positive Defense of the Christian Perspective

identical to the New Testament of Muhammad's day, since today's NewTestament is based on existing manuscripts that go back even centuriesbefore Muhammad's day. Hence, by the logic of this verse Muslimsshould accept the authenticity of today's Bible. But if they do, then theyshould accept the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity (seeChapters 11 and 12) since that is what the New Testament teaches. How-ever, Muslims categorically reject these teachings. Hence, the dilemmawithin the Islamic view.

There is another inconsistency within the Islamic (Qur'anic) viewregarding the Bible. They claim that the Bible is "the Word of God" (2:75).However, Muslims also insist that God's words cannot be altered orchanged. But, as Pfander points out, "if both these statements are correct... then it follows that the Bible has not been changed and corruptedeither before or since Muhammad's time." 17 However, Islamic teachinginsists that the Bible has been corrupted. Thus the contradiction.

Furthermore, as Islamic scholar Richard Bell points out, it is unrea-sonable to suppose that Jews and Christians would conspire together tochange the Old Testament. For "... their [the Jews] feeling towards theChristians had always been hostile." 18 Why would two hostile parties(Jews and Christians), who shared a common Old Testament, conspireto change it to support the views of a common enemy, the Muslims? Itdoes not make any sense. What is more, at the supposed time of the tex-tual changes Jews and Christians were spread all over the world, makingthe supposed collaboration to corrupt the text impossible. And the num-ber of copies of the Old Testament in circulation were too numerous toguarantee that the changes would be uniform. Also, there is no mentionof any such changes by former Jews or Christians of the time whobecame Muslims—something that they surely would have reported if itwere true. 19

Furthermore, Muslim rejection of the New Testament is contrary tothe overwhelming manuscript evidence. All the Gospels are preserved inthe Chester Beatty Papyri, dated about A.D. 250. And the vast majority ofthe New Testament exists in the Vaticanus Ms. (B) that dates from aboutA.D. 325-50. In addition there are nearly 5,700 other manuscripts of theNew Testament dating from the second century A.D. to the fifteenth cen-tury (hundreds of which are from before the time of Muhammad) thatconfirm the same substantial text of the whole New Testament existingin Muhammad's day.

17. Pfander, 101.18. Bell, 164-65.19. For a further elaboration of these points see Josh McDowell and John Gilchrist, The

Islam Debate (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, 1983), 52-53.


The New Testament text of Muhammad's day is confirmed by thesesame manuscripts to be the same basic New Testament text of Jesus' day.For these manuscripts provide an unbroken chain of testimony to thevery threshold of the first century for the authenticity of the New Testa-ment text we possess today. For example, the earliest fragment of the NewTestament, the John Ryland Fragment, is dated about A.D . 117-38. It pre-serves verses from John 18 just as they are found in later manuscripts andin today's New Testament. Likewise, the Bodmer Papyri from the secondcentury A.D. preserve the whole books of Peter and Jude as we have themtoday. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the New Testa-ment message was destroyed or distorted, as Muslims claim it was 2 0

Finally, Muslims use liberal critics of the New Testament in an attemptto show that the New Testament was corrupted, misplaced, and out-dated. However, the late liberal New Testament scholar, Bishop JohnRobinson, concluded that the Gospel record was written well within thelives of the apostles, somewhere between 40 and 60 A.D. Likewise, formerBultmannian New Testament critic Eta Linnemann has more recentlyconcluded that negative New Testament criticism, which holds that theNew Testament as preserved in the manuscripts does not accurately pre-serve the words and deeds of Jesus, is defunct. This former disciple ofRudolph Bultmann writes: "As time passes, I become more and moreconvinced that to a considerable degree New Testament criticism aspracticed by those committed to historical-critical theology does notdeserve to be called science." 21 The author adds, "The Gospels are notworks of literature that creatively reshape already finished material afterthe manner in which Goethe reshaped the popular book about Dr.Faust."22 Rather, "Every Gospel presents a complete, unique testimony.

It owes its existence to direct or indirect eyewitnesses."23 (Further evi-dence for the reliability of the New Testament is found in Appendix 4.)

Furthermore, the use of these liberal critics by Muslim apologists ismisplaced, since it undermines their own view of the Qur'an. Muslimwriters are fond of quoting the conclusions of liberal critics of the Biblewithout giving serious consideration to their presuppositions. For exam-ple, the same antisupernaturalism that led liberal critics of the Bible todeny that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, noting the different words forGod used in different passages, would likewise argue that the Qur'an didnot come from Muhammad. For the Qur'an also uses different names for

20. For further support of this point, see Geisler and Nix, Chapter 22.21. Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of

the First Three Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 9.22. Ibid., 104.23. Ibid., 194.


God in different places. Allah is used for God in suras 4, 9, 24, 33, butRabis used in suras 18, 23, and 25. 24 Muslims seem blissfully unaware that theviews of these critics are based on an antisupernatural bias that, ifapplied to the Qur'an and the hadith, would destroy basic Muslim beliefsas well. In short, Muslims cannot appeal to criticisms of the New Testa-ment that are based on the belief that miracles do not occur, unless theywish to undermine their own faith.

To summarize, if Christians in Muhammad's day were obligated toaccept the New Testament, and if abundant manuscript evidence con-firms that the New Testament of today is essentially the same, then it fol-lows that, according to the teachings of the Qur'an itself, Christians areobligated to accept the teachings of the New Testament today. But theNew Testament today affirms that Jesus is the Son of God who died onthe cross for our sins and rose again three days later (see Chapters 11 and13). But this is contrary to the Qur'an. Thus, Muslim rejection of theauthenticity of the New Testament is inconsistent with their own belief inthe inspiration of the Qur'an.

I NCONSISTENT USE OF THE BIBLE

Muslims do not reject all of the New Testament. In fact, they oftenappeal to certain New Testament passages to support their belief thatJesus did not claim to be God. However their selection of "authentic"passages is arbitrary, suited only to fit their doctrinal interests. If selectpassages seem to support their own doctrines, they will be declaredauthentic. If, on the other hand, as is the case with the vast majority oftexts, they do not support Islamic beliefs, they will arbitrarily be pro-nounced corrupt.

When Muslims pronounce certain biblical passages authentic, it is notbecause they recognize there is good manuscript evidence for it asopposed to those they consider unauthentic. As a matter of fact, as wehave just seen, these have the same manuscript authority as the so-calledunauthentic ones. The whole concept of corruption or tahrif crucial as itis to the Islamic claim, has absolutely no textual support. The Bible hasoverwhelming manuscript support that predates Muhammad by centu-ries. Indeed, as we have seen, there is more manuscript evidence for theNew Testament than for any book from the ancient world.

Furthermore, even the conclusions drawn from the select passagesthey pronounce "authentic" are based on a misunderstanding of the pas-sages' meaning. Since many of these involve the deity of Christ and the

24. See R. K. Harrison, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1979), 517.


Trinity, the reader is referred to Chapter 1 2 for a detailed discussion ofthese misinterpreted texts. For now, we turn our attention to anotherMuslim attempt to support the Qur'an: the effort to prove errors in theBible.

In his popular book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, Bucaille con-tends that "quotations from the Gospels themselves show flat contradic-tions."25 He believes that "monumental errors are to be found in theBible."26 Bucaille's list, however, is neither monumental nor difficult.Since we have compressively answered these kinds of criticisms else-where,27 we will respond only to the ones most often used by Muslimapologists.

Genesis 1:2. According to Bucaille, Genesis 1 is "a masterpiece of inac-curacy from a scientific point of view." 28 He cites the fact that Genesis1:2 mentions water in an early stage of the earth's history, yet he insists,"to mention the existence of water at this period is however simply pureallegory." 29

This is a strange charge for several reasons. Bucaille himself admitsthat "there is every indication that at the initial stage of the formation ofthe universe a gaseous mass existed." 30 Yet water itself has a gaseousstate known as vapor. Further, scientific views change. The theories oftoday are often discarded tomorrow. So even if there were some theorytoday holding that there was no water in the initial state of our universe,it may be found to be false tomorrow. Furthermore, there was water inthe early stages of earth's history, at least in the form of vapor. This is oneof the reasons life as we know it is possible on earth, unlike other planetsin our solar system or elsewhere. So in his haste to find errors in the BibleBucaille has made one of his own. Finally, scientific theory cannot over-rule a fact of God's revelation. Bucaille would never allow a scientificview, no matter how widely held, to overthrow his belief that the Qur'anis a miracle. Yet most modern scientists reject miracles.

Genesis 1:3—5. About Genesis 1:3—5 Bucaille affirms, "it is illogical,however, to mention the result (light) on the first day, when the cause ofthis light [the sun] was created three days later."

31

But almost anyone with an even elementary knowledge of science andthe Bible can answer this objection. For the sun is not the only source oflight in the universe. Further, it is not necessary to understand the text as

25. Bucaille, 115.26. Ibid., 127.27. See Geisler and Howe.28. See Bucaille, 40.29. Ibid., 41.30. Ibid.31. Ibid.


saying the sun was created on the fourth day. I t may have been only madeto appear on the fourth day, after the mist of water vapor had clearedaway so that its outline became visible. 32 Before this its light may havebeen shining through, just as it does on a misty day, without observers onearth being able to see the outline of the sun.

Genesis 1:6-8. According to Genesis 1:6–8 God made "a firmament inthe midst of the waters." But Bucaille calls this a "myth," insisting that"this image of the division of the waters into two masses is scientificallyunacceptable."

33

It is true that the Hebrew word for the "firmament" (raqia) that Godcreated (Gen. 1:6; cf. Job 37:18) originally meant a solid object 3 4 How-ever, meaning is not determined by origin (etymology) but by usage.Originally, the English word "board" referred to a wooden plank. Butwhen we speak of a member of a corporate board, it no longer has thatmeaning. Likewise, when used of the atmosphere above the earth, "fir-mament" clearly does not mean something solid. The related word raqa(beat out, spread out) is correctly rendered "expanse" by many transla-tions. So just as metal spreads out when beaten (Exod. 39:3; Isa. 40:19),the firmament too is a thinned out area. The root meaning "spread out"can be used independently of "beat out," as it is in several passages (Ps.136:6; Isa. 42:5; 44:24). Isaiah writes: "So says Jehovah God, He who cre-ated the heavens and stretched them out, spreading out the earth and itsoffspring" (Isa. 42:5 NKJV , emphasis added). This same verb is used ofextending curtains or tents in which to dwell, which would make nosense unless there was no empty space there in which to live. Isaiah, forexample, spoke of the Lord "who sits on the circle of the earth, and itspeople are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" (Isa. 40:22 NKJV, emphasisadded). Also, the Bible speaks of rain falling through the sky (Job 36:27-28). But this makes no sense if the sky is a metal dome. It is absurd to sup-pose that there were little holes in a metal dome through which the dropscould fall.

35

The same creation account in Genesis speaks of birds that "fly abovethe earth across the face of the firmament" (Gen. 1:20). But this would beimpossible if the sky were solid. Thus, it is more appropriate to translate

32. The Hebrew word for made, asah, occurs about 1,200 times in the Old Testament.It has a wide range of meanings, including: did, made, show, appear, made to appear, etc.

33. See Bucaille, 41.34. The discussion here follows that in Geisler and Howe, 229-30.35. The Bible does speak figuratively of the "windows of heaven" opening for the flood

(Gen. 7:11). But this may not be meant any more literally than our English idiom, "It is rain-ing cats and dogs" (meaning it is raining very hard).


raqia by the word "expanse" (as the NASB and NIV do). And in this sensethere is no conflict with the concept of space in modern science.

Even taken literally, Job's parallel statement (Job 37:18) does notaffirm that the "skies" are a "metal mirror" but simply that they are "asdike]" a mirror. In other words, it is a comparison that need not be takenliterally, any more than God is really a "strong tower" (Prov. 18:10). Fur-ther, the point of comparison in Job is not the solidity of the "skies" or amirror but their durability (cf. "strong" (chazaq], v. 18). So when all isconsidered, there is no evidence that the Bible affirms that the sky of fir-mament is a metallic dome. And thus there is no conflict here with mod-ern science, as Muslim critics claim.

Genesis 1:19—23. Islamic scholars find two things unacceptable in Gen-esis 1:19—23: "the fact that continents emerged at the period in earth'shistory, when it was still covered with water" and "what is totally unac-ceptable is that a highly organized vegetable kingdom with reproductionby seed could have appeared before the existence of the sun."

36

In response, we note that the first point is unsubstantiated, and thesecond one we have already answered above under Genesis 1:3—5. Inbrief, Bucaille has dogmatized science in the first criticism and isimproperly informed. To whom is it "totally unacceptable" that Godcreated seed-bearing plants early in earth's history? To a nontheisticevolutionist, perhaps, who rejects God and his special work of creation.But this certainly should not be unacceptable to a Muslim, like Bucaille,who claims to believe the Qur'an. For the Qur'an teaches that God is"almighty" and can do anything he desires (2:159). Furthermore, theQur'an affirms that God created the world and all that is in it in a fewdays. Why should it be thought unacceptable, then, to believe that onone of these days (the third one in the Bible) God created seed-bearingplants? At best, the only contradiction here is between the Bible and aprevalent current scientific hypothesis.37 There is no contradictionbetween the Bible and scientific fact.

Genesis 1:14-19. Muslim critics state that "to place the creation of theSun and Moon after the creation of the Earth is contrary to the mostfirmly established ideas on the formation of the elements of the SolarSystem. " 38

But here again, there are two problems. One is to assume that even themost prevailing scientific ideas are to be taken as absolute fact. Indeed, it

36. See Bucaille, 42.37. For a critique of current evolutionary thinking, see Michael Denton, Evolution: A

Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler, 1985): and Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Tri-al ( Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991). Our own treatment is found in Geisler, Ori-

gin Science, esp. Chapters 5-7.38. See Bucaille, 42.


is strange that Muslims use this argument, since they too point to themistake of many theologians in assuming that the almost universally pre-vailing scientific view of a geocentric (earth-centered) universe was a sci-entific fact. In like manner, prevailing scientific ideas about the origin ofthe sun and moon could be wrong.

Furthermore, as we have seen above in comments on Genesis 1:3-5, itis not necessary to believe that the sun and moon were created on thefourth day. Rather, for whatever reason (perhaps as the original vapordisappeared), their form may have only been made visible from the faceof the earth on the fourth day. At any rate, there is no real contradictionhere and certainly no "momentous" one, as Muslims overenthusiasti-cally proclaim.

Of Genesis 1:20-30, Bucaille insists that "this passage contains asser-tions which are unacceptable," such as, "the animal kingdom began withthe appearance of creatures of the sea and winged birds." However,according to modern science, birds did not appear until after reptiles andother land animals. "This order of appearance, beasts of the earth afterbirds, is not therefore acceptable. "39

Here again, the mistake is not in the infallible Bible but in Bucaille'sfallible interpretation of it, as well as in his flawed understanding of sci-ence. First, he has a mistaken interpretation of the Bible. It does not actu-ally say that God created feathered birds before reptiles. It simply refersto winged creatures (Gen. 1:21). 40 And, according to science, there werewinged creatures that existed before feathered birds. Winged dinosaursare an example. Their mention along with the "great sea creatures"(probably including dinosaurs) is further indication that the referencehere may be to winged dinosaurs, not to feathered birds.

Furthermore, Bucaille seems to assume an evolutionary basis for hiscriticism. But, as we have already noted, evolution is not a proven fact butan unsubstantiated hypothesis. To offer as scientific proof that "numer-ous biological characteristics common to both species makes this deduc-tion possible" is to make a fallacious deduction. For common character-istics do not prove common ancestry; it may be an indication of acommon Creator. After all, there is a progressive similarity in automo-biles from the first ones to current ones. No one, however, believes thatone evolved from another by natural processes. Only intelligent interven-tion (creation) can account for the origin of the successive models ofcars. 41

39. Ibid., 42-43.40. This is often translated "birds" (i.e., flying animals) but is never rendered "feathered

creatures."41. See Denton or Johnson for a critique of evolution.


Finally, some contemporary scientists are questioning the long-heldassumption that all winged creatures appeared after reptiles. Some fos-sils of flying marine animals have been found in earlier strata that werecommonly assigned to the origin of reptiles. In any event, there is no flatcontradiction here between scientific fact and Genesis. It is only betweenvarious theories of science and some misinterpretations of Genesis.

Genesis 1:24-31. As for Genesis 1:24-31, Bucaille only repeats hischarge (just answered) that the "error was to place the appearance ofbeasts of the earth after that of the birds." 42 Interestingly, he admits thatthe Bible is right in that "man's appearance is however correctly situatedafter the other species of living things."

43

Genesis 2:1-3. Commenting on the biblical teaching that God createdin six days (Genesis 2:1-3), Bucaille contends that "today we are perfectlyaware that the formation of the Universe and the Earth took place instages that lasted for very long periods." Aware that these "days" of Gen-esis could be taken as long periods of time, he simply repeats his unsub-stantiated charge that "the succession of episodes it contains is in abso-lute contradiction with elementary scientific knowledge." 44 But this hasalready been shown above to be without factual or logical grounds.

Genesis 2:4f. As for Genesis 2:4f, Bucaille adopts the outdated criticalview that Genesis 2 contradicts the account given in Genesis 1. Thecharge here is that Genesis 1 declares that animals were created beforehumans, while Genesis 2:19 seems to reverse this, saying, "the Lord Godformed every beast of the field . . . and brought them to Adam to see whathe would call them," implying Adam was created before they were.

The solution to this problem, however, becomes apparent when wetake a closer look at the two texts. The differences appear from the factthat Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more contentabout them. Genesis 2 does not contradict Chapter 1, since it does notaffirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says he broughtthe animals (which he had previously created) to Adam in order that hemight name them. The focus in Chapter 2 is on the naming of the ani-mals, not on creating them. Thus, Genesis 2:4, stressing the naming (notthe creating) of animals, simply says: "The Lord God [who had previ-ously) formed every beast of the field ... brought them to Adam to seewhat he would call them."

Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and Chapter 2 gives details.Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more com -

42. See Bucaille, 43.43. Ibid.44. Ibid., 45.


plete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be sum-marized as follows:

GENESIS 1 GENESIS 2Chronological order Topical OrderOutline DetailsCreating Animals Naming Animals

Once this is understood, there is absolutely no contradiction at all. Thetwo texts are perfectly complementary.

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS IN LIFESPANS OF PREDELUVIANS

According to Bucaille, "In Genesis (6:3) God decided just before theFlood to limit man's lifespan to one hundred and twenty years.... Fur-ther on however, we note in Genesis (11:10-32) that the ten descendantsof Noah had lifespans that range from 148 to 600 years.... The contradic-tion between these two passages is quite obvious."

45

Of course, the contradiction in this text is obvious only to those whooverlook the context. First of all, even on the assumption that this textrefers to the lifespan of Noah's descendants, it does not say that thisshortening of life would take place immediately. It may refer only to theeventual lifespan of the postdeluvians. Indeed, Moses, who wrote thesewords, lived to exactly 120 years (Deut. 34:7).

Furthermore, there is no necessity to take it as a reference to thelifespan of individuals after the flood at all. It may refer, rather, to thelength of time humankind then had left before God would send the flood.This fits better with the immediate context that speaks of how long Godwould exhort humankind to repent before he sent a flood. The text reads:"My Spirit shall not always strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh;yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years" (Gen. 6:3). So thereis no contradiction here at all, to say nothing of a monumental one.

Genesis 5, 11. According to the years listed in these genealogies, there areonly about two thousand years before Abraham, who lived about 2000 B.C.But according to Bucaille, modern science has established that humanbeings originated "tens of thousands of years," even millions of yearsbefore the time of Christ. Thus, the Bible contradicts modern science . 46

Once more Bucaille errs in both science and Scripture. First, there isnot, as he falsely claims, an "obvious incompatibility between what wecan derive from the numerical data in Genesis about the date of man'sappearance on Earth and the firmly established facts of modern scientific

45. Ibid., 39-40.46. Ibid., 46-48.


knowledge." 47 In fact, the age of humankind on earth in terms of tens ofthousands of years is far from a matter of being a "firmly established" fact.As a matter of fact, it is a highly disputed subject, with no indisputable evi-dence that places man in many tens of thousands of years B.C., to say noth-ing of millions of years. 48

Second, Bucaille misinterprets the biblical text, assuming that thereare no gaps in its genealogical lists. Matthew 1:8, for example, says "Joram

begot Uzziah." However, 1 Chronicles 3:11 lists "Joram [and then] hisson, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son . . ." before we get toUzziah (also called "Azariah"). In other words, there is a three-generationgap here in the genealogical list. Ahaziah was apparently the immediateson of Joram, and Uzziah was a distant "son" (descendant). Just as theword "son" in the Bible also means grandson or great-grandson, even sothe term "begotten" can be used of a grandson, great-grandson, and soon. In other words, "begot" means "became the ancestor of," and the one"begotten" is the "descendant of." Matthew, therefore, is not giving acomplete chronology, but an abbreviated genealogy of Christ's ancestry.

MATTHEW 1:8 1 CHRONICLES 3:11-12Joram Joram

AhaziahJoashAmaziah

Uzziah Uzziah (also called Azariah)

The same is true of Genesis 5 and 11. For example, Genesis 11:12 doesnot list Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah (Shelah). But in the list givenin Luke 3:36 it does. So here too is another time gap in the genealogicallists. Since there are proven gaps in this abbreviated list, it is wrong toassume that one can add up all the numbers and get an accurate figure ofthe time Adam appeared on earth. Since the Bible does not give a precisetime that humans first appeared on earth, there is no contradiction withthe claims of modern science. Furthermore, it is not a proven fact (butonly a widely accepted theory) that humankind has been on earth fortens of thousands of years, as Bucaille claims.

Genesis 6:8. Islamic critics see problems in what they consider to betwo contradictory accounts of Noah's flood. Bucaille points out that"rainwater is given as the agent of the Flood in one (Yahvist) passage, but

47. Ibid., 48, emphasis ours.48. See N. L. Geisler and Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations ( Minneapolis: Beth-

any, 2001), Chapter 8.


in another (Sacerdotal), the Flood is given a double cause; rainwater andthe waters of the Earth. "49

That such obviously complementary statements as these should beoffered as flat contradictions is in itself reason to have confidence in theScriptures. There is absolutely no conflict at all here. One passage is sim-ply giving an additional source of water. The first passage did not say thatrain would be the only source of water. The Muslim critic would have toadd this to the text in order to find an error there. But then the errorwould not be in the Bible but in the Muslim critic who added this to theBible!

The same can be said about the Islamic charge that the Bible gives dif-ferent lengths of time that the flood lasted. Each text is speaking about adifferent period of time. Genesis 7:24 (and 8:3) speaks of the flood waterslasting 150 days. But other verses say it was only 40 days (Gen. 7:4, 12, 17).These numbers refer to different things. Forty days refers to how long it"rained" (7:12), and 150 days speaks of how long the flood "waters pre-vailed" (cf. 7:24), at the end of which "the waters decreased" (8:3). Afterthis it was not until the fifth month after the rain began that the ark restedon Mount Ararat (8:4). Then about eleven months after the rain began thewaters dried up (8:13). And exactly one year and ten days after the floodbegan Noah and his family emerged on dry ground (8:14).

Bucaille also sees a contradiction in the biblical assertion that onlythrough Noah's three sons was the earth repopulated after the flood, "sothat when Abraham was born roughly three centuries later, he found ahumanity that was already reformed into separate communities." Heasks, "how could this reconstruction have taken place in such short time?This simple observation deprives the narration of all verisimilitude. "50

But again, it is the critic's claim that lacks credibility, not the biblical nar-rative. Even on the assumption challenged above under Genesis 6:8 thatthere were only about 4,000 years before Christ, there was plenty of timebetween Noah and Abraham to populate the earth with tens of thou-sands of people. Assuming that the average family had only 10 children(Jacob had 12) and that children were not born until their parentsreached 50, there would have been over one half million people in 350years. And assuming only a third of these were still alive in Abraham'stime, there would still be over 160,000. And even subtracting for unnatu-ral deaths, there would still be some 100,000, which was more than nec-essary to form humanity into "separate communities."

Furthermore, as we have seen above, there were gaps in the genealog-ical tables, and there have been many more generations between Noah

49. Bucaille, 49.50. Ibid., 50.


and Abraham than the six or seven allotted, assuming a closed genealogy.And with only one more generation the population could have been inthe multimillions! Now no doubt the population was much less, say onlytens of thousands, but the point is that there is absolutely no factual orlogical contradiction here.

Matthew 1:1f. Most Muslim critics of the Bible make a big point out ofthe seeming contradiction between Matthew and Luke's genealogical listof Christ's ancestors. 51 For example, Jesus has a different grandfather inLuke 3:23 (Hell) than he does in Matthew 1:16 (Jacob). Which one is theright one?

In response, we simply point to the obvious, namely, that two geneal-ogies should be expected, since there are two different lines of ancestors,one traced through his legal father Joseph, and the other through hisactual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, emphasizing theJewish Messiah's credentials. Jews believed that the Messiah would comefrom the seed of Abraham and the line of David (Matt. 1:1). Luke, with abroader Greek audience in view, presented Jesus as the Perfect Man(which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to thefirst man, Adam (Luke 3:38).

That Matthew gives Jesus' paternal genealogy and Luke his maternalgenealogy is further supported by several facts. While both lines traceChrist to David, each is through a different son of David. Matthew tracesJesus through Joseph (his legal father)52 to David's son, Solomon theking, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (2 Sam.7:12f). Luke's purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actualhuman. So he traces Christ to David's son, Nathan, through his actualmother, Mary, through whom he can rightfully claim to be fully human,the redeemer of humanity.

Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus' genealogy through Joseph.Rather, he notes that Jesus was "as was supposed" (Luke 3:23) the son ofJoseph, while he was actually the son of Mary. That Luke would recordMary's genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birthand with his emphasis on women in his Gospel that has been called theGospel for Women."

Finally, the fact that the two genealogies have some names in common(such as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27) does not provethey are the same genealogy for two reasons. One, these are not uncom-

51. Ibid., 94ff.52. Since Jesus was horn of a virgin, he had no actual (biological) human father. But he

did have a legal father, since he was horn to a virgin who was legally engaged to Joseph (cf.Matt. 1:18-19). And according to Jewish law, any child horn to a man's fiancee was legallyhis child.


mon names. Second, even the same genealogy (Luke's) has a repeat ofthe names Joseph and Judah (vv. 26, 30 ).

The two genealogies can be summarized as follows:

MATTHEWDavidSolomonRehoboamAbijahAsaJehoshaphatJacobJoseph (legal father)Jesus

LUKEDavidNathanMattathahMenanMeleaEliakimDeliMary (actual mother)Jesus

John 13:1. Bucaille sees a contradiction in the fact that John informs usthat Jesus ate the Last Supper "before the feast of the Passover" (John13:1). However, here the contradiction exists only in the critic's mind, notin the text of Scripture, since he provides absolutely no evidence that anyother text of Scripture contradicts this. Perhaps Bucaille hits the height ofsuperficiality when he mentions in this connection the fact that "the LastSupper and the Passion in John's Gospel are both very long, twice as longas in Mark and Luke."53 Just how this is supposed to prove the Bible isfilled with "momentous" contradictions one is hard pressed to discover!

Alleged Contradictions in Resurrection Accounts. Muslim apologistsoften point to alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' res-urrection and ascension. But when properly understood in context, noneof them is real, only imagined. 54 For example, Bucaille's primary argu-ment is that different accounts list different appearances, as though thisproved that they could not all be correct. Indeed, in the very same man-ner, the Qur'an lists a different number of days that it took God to create(cf. 32:4 with 41:9). Yet Muslims do not find it difficult to see how all theseharmonize.

55Since we will speak of the resurrection accounts in more

detail in Chapter 11, we will reserve further comment until then. It willsuffice to say here that neither Bucaille nor any other Muslim apologistshave proven a genuine contradiction in the Bible. Indeed, in their futilequest to find something wrong with the Bible they reveal what is wrongwith their own view.

53. See Bucaille, 104.54.For an excellent discussion of various resurrection accounts see John Wenham,

Easter Enigma, Are the Resurrection Stories in Conflict (Exeter: Paternoster Press. 1984).55. See discussion on this point in Chapter 2.


Islamic critics have long contended that there are numerous errors inthe Bible. However, they are long on criticism and short on proof. In fact,they have not discovered a single error in the Bible. Rather, the onlyerrors to be found are in their criticisms. Indeed, we have carefully exam-ined every error in the Bible alleged over the past forty years and have notfound a single one! Eight hundred of these alleged errors are discussed inour book, When Critics Ask.56 We have found that, while there are biblicaldifficulties, there are no demonstrable biblical errors. Other scholarshave come to the same conclusion.

57

The Bible has been scrutinized by some of the best legal minds in ourhistory and found to be authentic. The great Harvard legal expert, SimonGreenleaf, examined the New Testament carefully by legal standards andconcluded that "copies which had been as universally received and actedupon as the Four Gospels, would have been received in evidence in anycourt of justice, without the slightest hesitation." 58 Thus the Bible standssolid, even under the stringent cross-examination of great legal minds.

CONCLUSIONOne of the evidences Muslims give for the inspiration of the Qur'an is

that it presents God speaking in the first person. Thus, it seems to themto carry the mark of authentic words from God. In this regard, it is hardfor Muslims to understand how a book like the Bible, with its variety ofhuman literary forms usually spoken from a human perspective, can pos-sibly be the Word of God. What they forget, however, is that the Qur'anitself sometimes speaks from a purely human point of view. The very firstsura, for example, is a human prayer in which God is addressed in thesecond and third persons. After the introductory formula, it begins:"Praise be to God, The Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds.... Thee dowe worship, And Thine aid we seek" (1:2, 5).

Furthermore, the Bible also has many sections where God is speakingin the first person. This is most evident in the prophetic sections of theOld Testament in phrases like, "Thus says the Lord" or "The word of theLord came to me " (Isa. 1:10, 18; 6:8; Jer. 1:4; Ezek. 1:3, and so on). YetMuslims are unwilling to accept these sections of the Bible as they are tobe the Word of God.

Finally, even though the Bible is written by human beings, neverthe-less, these men claimed to be inspired of God. The apostle Paul, for exam-

56. See Geisler and Howe.57. See the noted linguist Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).58. Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists (reprint: Grand Rapids: Baker,

1984),9—10.


pie, claims that his writings are in "words which the Holy Spirit teaches"(1 Cor. 2:13). Indeed, he said of the whole Old Testament that "all Scrip-ture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). And Peter declared that"prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke asthey were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21). So there is no reason toreject the divine character of the Bible simply because it was producedthrough the instrumentality of human authors and literary styles. In-deed, as we have seen, all alleged contradictions in the Bible are justthat—alleged contradictions, not real ones.

11A DEFENSE OF THE DEITY

OF CHRIST

Islam claims Jesus was a mere human being, a prophet of God, super-seded by Muhammad who was the last and greatest of the prophets.Christianity insists Jesus is God in human flesh. Whatever other points ofcommonality there may be between these two forms of monotheism,there is no adjudicating this conflict. Both beliefs are at the heart of theirsystem, and each is diametrically opposed to the other. Since we havealready considered the evidence for Muhammad's claim, it remains toexamine the Christian claim that Christ is the very Son of God. Since theevidence for these claims is centered around Jesus' death on the crossand resurrection three days later, and since Muslims deny both, theseclaims will be the focus of this chapter.

MUSLIM MISUNDERSTANDINGS

According to Christian monotheism, God is one in essence (just like inIslamic monotheism), but three in persons. One of these persons isChrist, the Son of God who, like human sons, is of the same nature as hisFather but is a different person. Muslim misunderstanding of Christianmonotheism begins when they claim, as Ajijola does, that "Jesus claimedonly to be a prophet or a messenger of God. The Gospels also accordJesus a status not a shade higher than that of Prophet and Messenger."

1

Noted Muslim commentator Abdalati declares that "all [the passagesabout Jesus in the Qur 'an] emphasize the fact that Jesus never claimed tobe a god or the Son of God, and that he was only the servant and apostle

1. Ajijola, 183.

233


of the Lord in the pattern of those before him."2 Mufassir adds, "the bib-lical expression 'Son of God' cannot be said to have ever come, authenti-cally, from the lips of Jesus himself."3

At the heart of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ.Muslims deny that Jesus died on the cross and rose again from the deadthree days later. Christians, on the other hand, not only claim that this isthe central truth of Christianity but that it is also the central proof ofChrist's claim to be the Son of God in human flesh. Thus, it is necessaryto address the Muslim misunderstanding about the death of Christ. Sincethe significance of Christ's death will be discussed later (in Chapter 13),we will treat only the fact of Christ's death here.

Contrary to Islamic thought, there is overwhelming historical and fac-tual evidence that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day.The evidence for Christ's death is greater than for that of almost anyevent in the ancient world.

Many skeptics and Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross.Some say that he took a drug that put him in a coma-like state and that helater revived in the tomb. But the Bible says repeatedly that Christ died onthe cross (Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Thess. 4:14). But Jesus never fainted orswooned or was d rugged on the cross. In fact, he refused the drug custom-arily offered to the victim before crucifixion to help deaden pain (Matt.27:34), and accepted only "vinegar" later (v. 48) to quench his thirst.

Contrary to Muslim belief, the evidence that Christ actually died onthe cross is overwhelming.4 Consider the following.

First of all, the Old Testament predicted that Christ would die (Isa.53:5-10; Ps. 22:16; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 12:10). And Jesus fulfilled the Old Tes-tament prophecies about the Messiah (Matt. 4:14; 5:17-18; 8:17; John4:25-26; 5:39).

Second, Jesus announced many times during his ministry that he wasgoing to die (John 2:19-21; 10:10-11; Matt. 12:40; Mark 8:31). Typical isMatthew 17:22-23 that says, "The Son of Man is about to be betrayed intothe hands of men and they will kill Him, and the third day He will beraised."

Third, all the predictions of his resurrection, both in the Old Testa-ment (Ps. 16:10; Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2), and in the New Testament (John2:19-21; Matt. 12:40; 17:22-23) are based on the fact that he would die.Only a dead body can he resurrected.

2. Abdalati, 158.3. Mufassir, 22.4. For a response to Ahmed Deedat's arguments that Christ never died on the cross, see

McDowell and Gilchnst, 47f.

A Defense of the Deity ofChrist 235

Fourth, the nature and extent of Jesus' injuries indicate that he musthave died. He had no sleep the night before he was crucified. He wasbeaten several times and whipped. And he collapsed on the way to hiscrucifixion carrying his cross. This in itself, to say nothing of the crucifix-ion to follow, was totally exhausting and life-draining.

Fifth, the nature of the crucifixion assures death. Jesus was on thecross from 9 A.M. (Mark 15:25) in the morning until just before sunset. Hebled from wounded hands and feet plus from the thorns that pierced hishead. There would be a tremendous loss of blood from enduring this formore than six hours. Plus, crucifixion demands that one constantly pullhimself up in order to breathe, causing excruciating pain. Doing this allday would kill nearly anyone even if they were previously in good health.

Sixth, the piercing of Jesus' side with the spear, from which came"blood and water" (John 19:34), is proof that he had physically diedbefore the piercing. When this has happened, it is a medical proof thatthe person has already died.

Seventh, Jesus said he was in the act of dying on the cross when hedeclared "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit" (Luke 23:46).And "having said this, He breathed His last" (v. 46). John renders this, "Hegave up His spirit" (John 19:30). His death cry was heard by those whostood by (Luke 23:47—49).

Eighth, the Roman soldiers, accustomed to crucifixion and death, pro-nounced Jesus dead. Although it was a common practice to break the legsof the victim to speed death (so that the person can no longer lift himselfand breathe), they did not even break Jesus' legs (John 19:33).

Ninth, Pilate double-checked to make sure Jesus was dead before hegave the corpse to Joseph to be buried. "Summoning the centurion, heasked him if He had been dead for some time. And when he found outfrom the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph" (Mark 15:44—45).

Tenth, Jesus was wrapped in about seventy-five pounds of cloth andspices and placed in a sealed tomb for three days (John 19:39—40; Matt.27:60). If he was not dead by then, which he clearly was, he would havedied from lack of food, water, and medical treatment.

Eleventh, medical authorities who have examined the circumstancesand nature of Christ's death have concluded that he actually died on thecross.' An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association(March 21, 1986) concludes:

5. A number of noted medical experts have written in confirmation of Christ's death onthe cross, including Dr. Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary, and W. Stroud, Treatise on thePhysical Cause of the Death of Christ and Its Relation to the Principles and Practiceof Christianity 2nd ed. (London: Hamilton & Adams, 1871), 28-156, 489-94.


Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesuswas dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the tradi-tional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforatednot only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and therebyensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumptionthat Jesus did not die on the cross appear to he at odds with modern med-ical knowledge. 6

Twelveth, non-Christian historians and writers from the first and sec-ond centuries recorded the death of Christ. The Jewish historian of thetime of Christ, Josephus, believed that Jesus died on the cross. He wrote,"Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemnedhim to the cross." 7

Likewise, the Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus,wrote: "a wise man who was called Jesus.... Pilate condemned Him to becondemned and to die." He also noted that Jesus' disciples "reported thatHe had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He wasalive." 8 According to Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 221), the first-century histo-rian, Thallus (c. A.D. 52), "when discussing the darkness which fell uponthe land during the crucifixion of Christ," spoke of it as an eclipse.9 Thesecond-century Greek writer, Lucian, speaks of Christ as "the man whowas crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into theworld." He calls him the "crucified sophist."10 The "letter of Mara Bar-Serapion" (c. A.D. 73), housed in the British Museum, speaks of Christ'sdeath, asking: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing theirwise King?

"11Indeed, even the Jewish Talmud says, "on the eve of Pass-

over they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth).... Let everyone knowing aught inhis defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defenseand hanged him on the eve of Passover." 12 Finally, there was the Romanwriter, Phlegon, who spoke of Christ's death and resurrection in hisChronicles, saying, "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, butthat he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, andshowed how his hands had been pierced by nails." 13

Phlegon even men-

6. See The Journal of the American Medical Association ( March 21, 1986), 1463.7. Flavius Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" 18:3, trans. William Whiston, Josephus:

Complete Works (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1963), 379, emphasis ours.8. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55?—after 117), Annals, 15.44.9. See F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Chicago: Inter-

Varsity Press, 1968), 113.10. Lucian, On the Death of Peregrine.11. See Bruce, 114.12. Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a, "Eve of Passover").13. Phlegon, "Chronicles," as cited by Origen, "Against Celsus" from The Ante-Nicene

Fathers, trans. Alexander Roberts and lames Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976),vol. 4, 455, emphasis ours.

A Defense of the Deity of Christ 237

tioned "the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesusappears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which thentook place."

14

Thirteenth, the earliest Christian writers after the time of Christaffirmed his death on the cross by crucifixion. Polycarp, a disciple ofthe apostle John, repeatedly affirmed the death of Christ, speaking, forexample, of "our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even untodeath. "15 Ignatius (A.D. c. 30-c. 107) was a friend of Polycarp. He clearlyaffirmed the suffering and death of Christ, saying, "And He really suf-

fered and died, and rose again." Otherwise, he adds, all his apostleswho suffered for this belief, died in vain. "But, (in truth) none of thesesufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by theungodly." 16 In his Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr notesthat Jews of his day believed that "Jesus [was] a Galilean deceiver,whom we crucified."

17

This unbroken testimony from the Old Testament to the early churchfathers, including believers and unbelievers, Jews and Gentiles, is over-whelming evidence that Jesus really suffered and died on the cross. But ifit is an established fact that Jesus died, then it is also a fact that he rosefrom the dead, since the evidence is equally strong that he rose from thedead. Thus, this would miraculously confirm his unique claim to be theSon of God. Let us take a look at the evidence.

PROOF THAT JESUS I S THE SON OF GOD

There are several basic steps in the argument that Jesus is the Son ofGod. First, are the New Testament documents that record the words ofChrist accurate? Second, did the writers of the manuscripts give an accu-rate account of what Jesus taught? Third, did Jesus actually claim to bethe Son of God? Fourth, did Jesus perform unique miracles that con-firmed he was the Son of God?

THE RELIABILITY OF NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS

It may come as a surprise to those not familiar with the facts that thereis more documentary evidence for the reliability of the New Testament

14. Ibid.15. Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians," Chapter 1 in "The Apostolic

Fathers, " ed. A. Cleveland Coxe, in Roberts and Donaldson, 33.16. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Chapter 3 in The Apostolic Ea-

thers," ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 107;emphasis ours.

17. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho.


than for any other book from the ancient world. 18 Nevertheless, as weshall see, it is true for several reasons.

It is not uncommon for some of the great classics from antiquity tosurvive in only a handful of manuscript copies. According to the greatManchester scholar F. F. Bruce, we have about nine or ten good copiesof Caesar's Gallic War, twenty copies of Livy's Roman History, two cop-ies of Tacitus's Annals, and eight manuscripts of Thucydides' His-tory. 19

The most documented secular work from the ancient world isHomer's Iliad, surviving in some 643 manuscript copies. By contrast,there are now over 5,686 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. TheNew Testament is the most highly documented book from the ancient

world!20

One of the marks of a good manuscript is its age. Generally the olderthe better, since the closer to the time of original composition the lesslikely it is that the text has been corrupted. Most books from the ancientworld survive not only in a handful of manuscripts but in manuscriptsthat were made about one thousand years after they were originallycomposed. This is true of the above books. (it is rare to have, as theOdyssey does, only one manuscript copied five hundred years after theoriginal). The New Testament, by contrast, survives in complete booksfrom a little over 150 years after the books were composed. And onefragment21 survives from within about a generation of the time it wascomposed. No other book from the ancient world has as small a timegap (between composition and earliest manuscript copies) as the NewTestament.

Muslims make a strong point of the fact that the Qur'an has been com-pletely preserved. While this is largely true, at least after the Uthmanicrevisions, it misses the point, since the Qur'an is only a medieval book(seventh century A.D.). But most Muslims are totally unaware that for anancient book (first century A.D.) the New Testament is the most accu-rately copied book in the world.

22

There is widespread misunderstanding among Muslims and othersabout the so-called errors in the biblical manuscripts. Some have esti-mated there are about 200,000 of them. These are not really "errors "

but only variant readings, the vast majority of which are strictly gram-

18. The Qur'an comes from the medieval world, not the ancient world.19. See Bruce, 16.20. Geisler and Nix, Chapter 26.21. John Rylands papyri (P52), dated A.D. 1 17-38.22. We deal only with the New Testament here because it alone is crucial for establish-

ing the claims of Christ. However, the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports theaccuracy of the Old Testament manuscripts as well. See the discussion in Geisler and Nix,Chapter 21.


matical. These readings are spread throughout more than 5,300manuscripts, so that a variant spelling of one letter of one word in oneverse in 3,000 manuscripts is counted as 3,000 "errors. " The famoustextual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that only one-sixtieth ofthese variants rise above "trivialities." This would leave a text 98.33percent pure.23 The great scholar A. T. Robertson said that the realconcern is only with a "thousandth part of the entire text." 24 Thiswould make the New Testament 99.9 percent free of significant vari-ants. The noted historian Philip Schaff calculated that, of the 150,000variants known in his day, only 400 affected the meaning of the pas-sage, only 50 were of real significance, and not even one affected "anarticle of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustainedby other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scriptureteaching. "25

The overwhelming evidence for the reliability of the New Testamentmanuscripts over other hooks from the ancient world is summarized inthe following comparisons:

26

Author/Book Date WrittenEarliestCopies Time Gap

No. ofCopies

PercentAccuracy

Hindu,Mahabharata

13th cent. B.C . 90

Homer, Iliad 800 B.C. 643 95Herodotus,History

480—425 B.C. C. A.D. 900 C. 1,350 yrs. 8 ?

Thucydides,History

460—400 B.C. C. A.D. 900 C. 1,300 yrs. 8 ?

Plato 400 B.C. C. A.D. 900 c. 1,300 yrs. 7 ?

Demosthenes 300 B.C. C. A.D. 1100 c. 1,400 yrs. 200 ?

Caesar, GallicWars

100—44 B.C. C. A.D. 900 c. 1,000 yrs. 1 0 ?

Livy, Historyof Rome

59 B.C.-A.D . 17 4th cent.(partial)mostly10th cent.

C. 400 yrs.C. 1,000 yrs.

1partial19copies

?

Tacitus,Annals

A.D. 1 00 c. A.D. 1100 c. 1,000 yrs. 20 ?

23. See Geisler and Nix, 365.24. A. T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament

(Nashville: Broadman, 1925), 22.25. Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version (New York:

Harper, 1883), 177.26. See Geisler and Nix, 408.


Author/Book Date WrittenEarliestCopies Time Gap

No. ofCopies

PercentAccuracy

PlinySecundus,NaturalHistory

A.D. 61—1 13 c. 850 c. 750 yrs. 7 ?

NewTestament

A.D. 50-100 c. 114(fragment)

+50 yrs.

c. 200(books)

100 yrs.

c. 250(most ofN.T.)

150 yrs.

C. 325(completeN.T.)

225 yrs. 5,686 99+

(From Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, 408)

Of course, like any ancient book, there are minor transcription errorsin the copies. But none of these affect the message of the Bible. To illus-trate, note the following telegrams, one that is received one day and theother the next.

1)"Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS."2)"YO# HAVE. WON TEN MILLION DOLIARS."

Even if we received only the first telegram we know what the exactmessage is in spite of the error. And if we received twenty telegrams, eachone having a similar mistake in a different place, we would say that themessage is beyond all reasonable doubt. Now it is noteworthy that theNew Testament manuscripts have a much smaller percentage of signifi-cant copyist errors than this telegram. 27 Further, with some 5,700 manu-scripts (compared to a few telegrams), the real message of the New Tes-tament is no more affected than is the message of the telegram.

By comparison with the New Testament, most other books from theancient world are not nearly so well authenticated. The well-known NewTestament scholar Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata ofHinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer'sIliad with about 95 percent. By comparison, he estimated the New Testa-ment is about 99.5 percent accurate. 28 So the New Testament text can be

27. For examples and classes of scribal errors, see ibid., 469-73.28. Bruce Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963).


reconstructed with over 99 percent accuracy. And, what is more, 100percent of the message of the New Testament has been preserved in itsmanuscripts!

Islamic scholars recognize the textual scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon asan authority on the subject. Yusuf All, the great Muslim scholar andtranslator of the Qur'an, cites Kenyon several times as a recognizedauthority on ancient manuscripts. Yet Kenyon concluded that:

The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translationsfrom it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is solarge that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful pas-sage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This canbe said of no other ancient book in the world.29

THE RELIABILITY OF NEW TESTAMENT WITNESSES

Tracing the manuscripts hack to the first century does not prove, ofcourse, that those who wrote them were either honest or accurate. Inorder to establish the truth of what the manuscripts say, one must exam-ine the evidence relating to the witnesses.

NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS WERE CONTEMPORARIES OF THE EVENTS

Most (if not all) of the New Testament claims to be written by eyewit-nesses and contemporaries of the events of Jesus' ministry (c. A.D. 29—33).Matthew is written by a disciple and observer who gives long and directquotes from Jesus (e.g., 5—7; 13; 23; 24—25). He was accustomed to takingrecords as a tax collector (Matt. 9:9). Mark was a disciple of Peter (1 Peter5:13) and an eyewitness of Christ (2 Peter 1:16). Luke was an educatedcontemporary of Christ who said that "just as those who from the begin-ning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (viz., the apostles), sotoo "it seemed fitting for me as well, beginning, to write it out for you inconsecutive order" (Luke 1:1—3). John the apostle was a direct eyewitness(John 21:24; cf. 1 John 1:1), as was Peter (2 Peter 1:16). Paul was a contem-porary of Christ and a witness of his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:8). Paul listsmany others who saw the resurrected Christ, together with a group ofover five hundred, most of whom were still alive when he wrote (1 Cor.15:6).

The evidence that these claims should be taken at face value isweighty. First, there is the general rule of historical research expressed bythe philosopher Immanuel Kant. This rule says in effect that historicalreports are "innocent until proven guilty." That is, what purports to beauthentic would be accepted as authentic, until it is shown to be unau-

29. Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 4th ed. (New York: Harp-er, 1958), 55.


thentic. As many have pointed out, this is indeed the rule used in the normal discourses of life. Were the opposite used, there would be a break-down of all everyday communication.

Second, there is what is known in law as the "ancient documentrule." According to this rule, "a writing is sufficiently authenticated asan ancient document if the party who offers it satisfies the judge thatthe writing is thirty years old, that is unsuspicious in appearance, andfurther proves that the writing is produced from a place of custody nat-ural for such a document." According to the noted American legalauthority, McCormick, "Any combination of circumstances sufficientto support a finding of genuineness will be appropriate authentica-tion."30 Now, using the rule, the New Testament should be consideredauthentic. It is an ancient document whose transmission can be tracedand whose custodianship has been proper. In fact, many great legalminds have been convinced of the truth of Christianity on the basis ofthe rules of evidence used to try life-and-death cases in the courtroom.Simon Greenleaf, a professor of law at Harvard who wrote the book onlegal evidence, was converted to Christianity in just this way.31 Usingthe canons of legal evidence he concludes that, "Copies which had beenas universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels, would havebeen received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightesthesitation."

32

Third, the early dating of the New Testament manuscripts supportstheir truthfulness. The most knowledgeable scholars date the New Testa-ment books within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and alleged authors.Archaeologist Nelson Glueck wrote, "We can already say emphaticallythat there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Tes-tament after about A.D. 80."33 The renowned paleographer William F.Albright declared that "every book of the New Testament was written bya baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D .(very probably between about A.!). 50 and 75)." 34

The tendency of Muslim scholars, like Deedat, to follow the older moreliberal Christian scholars who give a late date for the New Testament isill-fated. Many of these scholars have had to change their position in viewof more recent arguments (see Appendix 4). Even the radical death-of-God theologian Bishop John Robinson, famous for writing Honest to God,

30. McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence, 2d ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1972),sec. 223.

31. John W. Montgomery, The Law above the Law ( Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975).32. Greenleaf, 9-10.33. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 1969), 136.34. Interview with William F. Albright, Christianity Today, January 18, 1963, 359.


became honest with the facts and declared that the New Testament waswritten by contemporaries beginning as early as seven years or so after the

events and were circulated among other eyewitnesses and/or contempo-raries of the events. 35 Another Bultmannian scholar has broken rankswith the radical view, arguing that the Gospels were written by eyewit-ness disciples of Jesus. After exposing the bankruptcy of the critical pre-suppositions, she forthrightly proclaimed, "That is why I say 'No' to his-torical-critical theology. I regard everything that I taught and wrote . . . asrefuse. 1 wish to use this opportunity to mention that I have pitched mytwo books Gleichnisse Jesu . . . and Studien zur Passionsgeschichte . . . Ithrew them into the trash with my own hands in 1978." 36 Subsequently,she has produced a scholarly tome on the Gospels, showing that there isno literary dependency on prior sources, as she had once argued as acritic of the Bible.

37

Indeed, there are many good reasons for holding that the Gospel writ-ers were first-century contemporaries of Christ who gave independent,firsthand accounts of what Jesus said and did.38 The manuscript evi-dence (listed above) reveals that the New Testament was a first-centurydocument. The critical arguments against the authenticity of the NewTestament documents are not based on factual evidence but on anunjustified antisupernatural bias that even Muslims reject. To put itanother way, if this same critical bias accepted by Muslim scholarsagainst the Bible were applied to the Qur'an, they would have to rejectthe Qur'an as well! The New Testament writings were cited by contem-porary first-century documents, such as the Shepherd of Hennas, show-ing that they must have been in existence in the first century. The Gospelof John claims to be written by an eyewitness disciple (John). Ile signsoff his book, saying, "This is the disciple who testifies of these things,and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true" (John21:24).

Luke claims to be a careful contemporary historian of the events herecords, saying, "having had perfect understanding of all things from thevery first, El decided] to write to you an orderly account . . . that you mayknow the certainty of those things in which you were instructed" (Luke1:3, 4). After spending many years researching the area, the noted experton the first-century Near East, Sir William Ramsay, concluded that Lukewas a first-rate historian. For in reference to thirty-two countries, fifty-

35. John A. T. Robinson, Honest to God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), esp. 352-53.36. Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1990), 20.37. Ibid.38. For a more detailed argument, see Geisler and Nix, 440-47.


four cities, and nine islands he did not make a single mistake! 39 The NewTestament writers were honest men who willingly died for what theybelieved. And they were careful to distinguish their words from those ofJesus, revealing that they were not inventing them but reporting them(Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 7:10, 12, 25; Rev. 1:17—20; 2:1f; 3:1f; 22:16-20). The NewTestament is markedly different from Christian folklore, such as is foundin the second- and third-century Christian apocryphal books. NotedOxford expert on literature and myths, C. S. Lewis, insightfully notesabout New Testament critics:

I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to bei mperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading.... If hetells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to knowhow many legends and romances he has read.... I have been readingpoems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know whatthey are like. I know that not one of them is like this [the Gospels].40

In short, there is no basis for the Muslim claim that the New Testamentis dependent on earlier sources. Rather, it is clearly a firsthand, first-cen-tury account by disciples and contemporaries of Christ. And contrary towidely believed liberal myths, each account is independent. Everyoneacknowledges the differences between and independence of John andLuke, which is all that is necessary to manifest their authenticity. And,even though it is unnecessary for the overall argument in defense of theauthenticity of the basic life and words of Christ, a good case can be madefor the independence of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)as well. 41

Fourth, the science of archaeology has confirmed the historical accu-racy of the Gospel records. This can be dramatically illustrated throughthe writings of Sir William Ramsay, whose conversion from a skepticalview of the New Testament was supported by a lifetime of research in theNear Eastern world. Ramsay speaks for himself:

I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparentcompleteness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; butmore recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Actsas an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It

39. Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (New York: G. Put-nam's Sons, 1896), esp. 8.

40. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 154-55.41. For a strong argument by a former biblical critic that the Gospels are not literally de-

pendent on one another, see Linnemann , ibid.


was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrativeshowed marvelous truth. 42

As already noted, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a first-rate histo-rian, not making a single error in the numerous details he was able tocheck. Noted Roman historian Colin Hemer has demonstrated the histo-ricity and authenticity of the New Testament in an incredible way

43His

work shows: 1) that the Books of Acts was written no later than A.D. 62; 2)that it is minutely accurate history written by an eyewitness and contem-porary of the events of Jesus' life; 3) that the same highly accurate con-temporary historian, Dr. Luke, also wrote a Gospel (cf. Acts 1:1 and Luke1:1) which tells the same basic story as the other Gospels, namely, thatJesus claimed to be and proved to be the Son of God by numerous andincredible miracles, and that he died on the Cross and rose from thegrave three days later. This is of course a strong confirmation of the cen-tral Christian message and a refutation of the central message of Islamthat God has no Son and that Jesus did not die on the Cross and rise fromthe dead three days later. So Luke's narration of the life and miracles ofChrist must likewise be accepted as authentic. And since Luke's narra-tion of Christ's life and miracles in it accord with that of the other Gos-pels, we have here an archaeological confirmation of the Gospels thatrecord the miracles and resurrection of Christ. In brief, from a strictly his-torical point of view, we could not have better evidence for the authentic-ity of events than we possess for the events in the life of Christ recordedin the New Testament.

HUME ' S CRITERIA FOR CREDIBILITYDavid Hume, perhaps the greatest skeptic of modern times, outlines

the basic criteria that he believes necessary for testing the credibility ofwitnesses: "We entertain suspicion concerning any matter of fact whenthe witnesses contradict each other, when they are but few or of a doubt-ful character, when they have an interest in what they affirm, when theydeliver their testimony with hesitation, or with too violent asseverations[ declarations]."

44Basically, these can be translated into four questions:

Do the witnesses contradict each other? Are there a sufficient number ofwitnesses? Were the witnesses truthful? Were they nonprejudicial? Let usapply Hume's tests to the New Testament witnesses for the resurrectionof Christ.

42. See Ramsay, 8.43. See Colin Hemer, Acts in the Setting of Hellenic History ( Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-

brauns, 1990).44. Flume, 120.


The evidence is that the testimony of the witnesses is not contradic-tory.45 Each New Testament writer tells a crucial and overlapping part ofthe whole story. Christ was crucified (around A.D . 30) under Pontius Pilatein Jerusalem. He claimed to he the Son of God and offered miracles insupport of his claim. He was crucified, confirmed to be dead and buried,and yet three days later the tomb was empty. Further, to many groups ofpeople on many occasions over the next month or so, Jesus physicallyappeared in the same nail-scarred body that had died. He proved hisphysical reality to them so convincingly that these skeptical men boldlypreached the resurrection a little over a month later in the same city,whereupon thousands of Jews were converted to Christianity.

To be sure, there are minor discrepancies in the Gospel accounts. Oneaccount (Matt. 28:5) says there was one angel at the tomb; John saysthere were two angels (John 20:12). But two things should be noted aboutthese kinds of discrepancies. First, they are conflicts but not contradic-tions. That is, they are not irreconcilable. Matthew does not say there wasonly one angel there, that would be a contradiction. The simple rule ofharmony is this: "Where there are two, there is one. " 46 Second, conflict oftestimony is just what one would expect from authentic, independentwitnesses. Any perceptive judge who heard several witnesses give identi-cal testimony would discount their testimony, assuming they were incollusion.

There are twenty-seven books in the New Testament. As already noted,they were written by some nine different persons, all of whom were eye-witnesses or contemporaries of the events they recorded. Of these books,six are crucial to the topic of New Testament miracles (Matthew, Mark,Luke, John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians). All of these books bear witness to themiracle of the resurrection. Further, even critical scholars now acknowl-edge that these books are first-century documents most of which werewritten before A.D. 70, while contemporaries of Christ were still alive. Vir-tually all scholars acknowledge that 1 Corinthians was written by theapostle Paul around A.D. 55 or 56, only about two decades after the deathof Christ. This is a powerful witness to the reality of the miracle of the res-urrection for several reasons. It is a very early document, written a littlemore than two decades after the event occurred. It is written by an eyewit-ness of the resurrected Christ (I Cor. 15:8; cf. Acts 9). It provides a list refer-ring to over five hundred eyewitnesses of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). Itcontains a reference to the fact that most of these witnesses were still aliveand could check out the reliability of the evidence for the resurrection.

45. For further support of this point, see Geisler and Howe, Chapter 10.46. For a further discussion on all the rules of harmonization, see Geisler and Howe ,

Chapter 1.


Few challenge the fact that the New Testament provides one of thegreatest standards of morality known to man in Jesus' emphasis on love(Matt. 22:36-37) and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). His apos-tles repeated this same teaching in their writings (cf. Rom. 13; 1 Cor. 13;Gal. 5). Furthermore, their lives exemplified their moral teaching. Most ofthem even died for what they taught about Christ (2 Tim. 4:6-8; 2 Peter1:14), an unmistakable sign of their sincerity.

In addition to teaching that truth is a divine imperative (Rom. 12:9), itis evident that the New Testament writers were scrupulous aboutexpressing it in their writings. Peter declared: "We did not follow cun-ningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16). The apostle Paul insisted, "Do not lieone to another" (Col. 3:9). The New Testament writers were honest men,most of whom sealed the truth of their testimony with their own willing-ness to die for the truth of what they had written. Where the New Testa-ment writers' statements overlap with the discovery of historians andarchaeologists, they have proven to be accurate. Noted archaeologistNelson Glueck concludes, "It may be stated categorically that no archae-ological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores ofarchaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outlineor exact detail historical statements in the Bible."47 Millar Burrows notesthat "more than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bibleincreased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. "48 Clifford A. Wil-son has added still more support to the historical reliability of the Bible. 49

In fact, there is no proof that the New Testament writers ever lied in theirwritings or deliberately falsified the facts of the case. If they were asked incourt "to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but thetruth" their testimony would he accepted as valid by any unbiased jury inthe world. In brief, as the great Harvard legal expert concluded, their tes-timony is devoid of any sign of perjury. 50

EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTIONThere is every reason to believe that New Testament witnesses of the

miracles of Christ, particularly of his resurrection, were not predisposedto believe the events to which they gave testimony.

First, the apostles themselves did not believe the testimony of othersthat Christ had risen from the dead. When the women reported it, "theirwords seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them"

47. Glueck, 31.48. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New Haven: American Schools of Orien-

tal Research, 1941), 1.49. Clifford A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1977).50. Cited in note 31.


(Luke 24:11). Even when some of the disciples saw Christ themselves theywere "slow of heart to believe" (Luke 24:25). Indeed, when Jesus ap-peared to ten apostles and showed them his crucifixion scars, "they stilldid not believe for joy, and marveled" (Luke 24:41). And even after theywere convinced by Jesus' eating of food, their absent colleague Thomasprotested that he would not believe unless he could put his finger in thescars in Jesus' hand (John 20:25).

Second, Jesus not only appeared to believers; he also appeared tounbelievers. He appeared to his unbelieving half-brother James (John7:5; 1 Cor. 15:7). Indeed, he appeared to the greatest unbeliever of theday—a Jewish Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9). If Jesus had onlyappeared to those who were either believers or with the propensity tobelieve, then there might be some legitimacy to the charge that the wit-nesses were prejudiced. But just the opposite is the case.

Third, the witnesses to the resurrection had nothing to gain personallyfor their witness to the resurrection. They were persecuted and threat-ened with death for their stand (Acts 4, 5, 8). As a matter of fact, most ofthe apostles were martyred for their belief. Certainly, it would have beenmuch more profitable personally for them to deny the resurrection.Rather, they proclaimed and defended it in the face of death.

Fourth, to discount their testimonies because they believed in the res-urrected Christ is like discounting an eyewitness of a murder because heactually saw it occur! The prejudice in this case is not with the witnessesbut with those who reject their testimony.

EVIDENCE THAT JESUS CLAIMED TO BE THE SON OF GOD

Since Muslims believe that Jesus performed miracles to confirm hisclaims to be speaking for God, we need not spend much time on thispoint. The Qur'an affirms Jesus' virgin birth (19:16-21; 3:37-47), and hismany miraculous acts recorded in the New Testament (and even theNew Testament Apocrypha), such as his healings and raising peoplefrom the dead (see 19:29-31; 5:110). The Qur'an even affirms that God"raised him up" to heaven (4:158), 51 though Muslims do not believe thisrefers to Jesus' resurrection three days after his crucifixion, as recordedin the Gospels.52 But the fact that Jesus performed miracles, even resur-rections, to prove his message was of God, is clearly affirmed by theQur 'an. So Muslims believe in the supernatural birth, life, and end of thelife of Christ on earth (viz., the ascension). He is in fact the only prophetwho possessed all three of these. This makes him, even according to the

51. For an excellent work on all the Qur'anic references to Jesus, see Parrinder.52. Rather, they believe this sura is a reference to Jesus' ascension.


Muslims' own teaching, the most unique supernatural person ever tolive.

Christians, of course, believe more. Unlike Muslims, they believe thatJesus is also the unique Son of God. But since Muslims believe that what-ever Jesus taught was true, it remains to provide evidence for Christ'sclaim to be the Son of God.

Like the Qur'an, the Bible also lays down miracles as the test for theauthenticity of a prophet (Exod. 4; 1 Kings 18; John 3:2; Heb. 2:3-4). Whatremains, then, is to examine the evidence to see if indeed the words of theJewish Rabbi Nicodemus were correct, when he said to Jesus, "We knowthat you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs thatYou do unless God is with him" (John 3:2).

Since we have already shown that the New Testament documents andwitnesses are reliable, it remains only to see what they tell us about theclaims of Christ. In brief, they inform us that Jesus of Nazareth, born ofthe virgin Mary, claimed to be the unique Son of God, deity incarnated inhuman flesh. There are a number of ways in which Jesus claimed to bethe Son of God. In an attempt to find support for this conclusion, Muslimscholars often misconstrue biblical claims about Christ. These will beconsidered later (in Chapter 12).

MUSLIM MISUNDERSTANDING OF "SON OF GOD"

Before discussing Jesus' specific claims to be the Son of God, it is nec-essary to respond briefly to the Muslim misunderstanding of this claim.Many Muslims understand the phrase "Son of God" to imply that Jesuswas the offspring of physical relations. Indeed, appeal is often made to19:35 which declares: "It is not befitting To (the majesty of) God That Heshould beget A son." Indeed, many Muslims grossly conceive of Jesus asthe offspring of sexual relations between God and the virgin Mary. This,of course, is a straw man and is easily refuted by reference to what theBible actually says about the miraculous conception of Jesus without anysexual relations (Matt. 1:18—24; Luke 1:26-35). There is, however, anotherproblem in the Muslim mind with the phrase "Son of God." There are twoArabic words for "son" that must be distinguished. The word waladdenotes a son born of sexual relations. Jesus is definitely not a son in thissense. However, there is another Arabic word for son, ibn, that can beused in a wider figurative or metaphorical sense. A traveler, for example,is spoken of as a "son of the road" (ibnussabil). It is in this wider sensethat it makes sense to speak of Jesus as the "Son (ibn) of God."

JESUS ' CLAIM TO BE GOD

Jehovah or Yahweh (YHWH) is the special name given by God for him-self in the Old Testament. It is the name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14,


when God said, "I AM THAT I AM. " While other titles for God may be usedof men (Adonai [Lord] in Gen. 18:12) or false gods (elohim [gods] in Deut.6:14), Jehovah is only used to refer to the one true God. No other personor thing was to be worshiped or served (Exod. 20:5), and his name andglory were not to be given to another. Isaiah wrote, "Thus saith Jehovah... I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" (Isa.44:6 ASV)53 and, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory I will notgive to another, neither my praise unto graven images" (42:8).

Yet Jesus claimed to be Jehovah on many occasions. Jesus prayed,"Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I hadwith thee before the world was made" (John 17:5). But Jehovah of the OldTestament says, "My glory I will not give to another" (lsa. 42:8). Jesusalso declares, "I am the first and the last" (Rev. 1:17)—precisely thewords Jehovah uses in Isaiah 42:8. Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11), but the Old Testament says, "Jehovah is my shepherd" (Ps.23:1). Further, Jesus claims to be the judge of all men (John 5:27f.; Matt.25:31f.), but Joel quotes Jehovah as saying, "for there I will sit to judge allthe nations round about" (Joel 3:12). Likewise, Jesus spoke of himself asthe "bridegroom" (Matt. 25:1) while the Old Testament identifies Jeho-vah in this way (Isa. 62:5; Hos. 2:16). While the Psalmist declares, "Jeho-vah is our light" (Ps. 27:1), Jesus says, "1 am the light of the world" (John8:12).

Perhaps the strongest claim Jesus made to be Jehovah is in John 8:58,where he says, "Before Abraham was, I am." This statement claims notonly existence before Abraham, but equality with the "I AM" of Exodus3:14. The Jews around him clearly understood his meaning and picked upstones to kill him for blaspheming (cf. John 8:58; 10:31-33). The sameclaim is made in Mark 14:62 and John 18:5-6.

Jesus claimed to be equal with God in other ways. One was by claimingfor himself the prerogatives of God. He said to a paralytic, "My son, yoursins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5f.). The scribes correctly responded, "Whocan forgive sins but God alone?" So, to prove that his claim was not anempty boast he healed the man, offering direct proof that what he hadsaid about forgiving sins was true also.

Another prerogative that Jesus claimed was the power to raise andjudge the dead: "Truly, truly I say to you, the hour is coming and now is,when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hearwill live ... and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrec-tion of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judg-ment" (John 5:29). He removed all doubt about his meaning when he

53. Bible references in this section are taken from the American Standard Version sincethey translate the sacred name for God (Yahweh) as Jehovah.


added, "For as the Father raised the dead and gives them life, so also theSon gives life to whom Ile will" (v. 21). But the Old Testament clearlyteaches that only God is the giver of life (1 Sam. 2:6; Deut. 32:39) and theone to raise the dead (Ps. 2:7) and the only judge (Joel 3:12; Deut. 32:35).

Jesus boldly assumed for himself powers that only God has.Jesus also claimed that he should be honored as God. He said that all

men should, "Honor he Son, even as they honor the Father. He who doesnot honor the Son does not honor the father." The Jews listening knewthat no one should claim to be equal with God in this way and again theyreached for stones (John 5:18).

Even the Qur 'an recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah (5:14, 75). But theOld Testament teaches that the coming Messiah would be God himself.So when Jesus claimed to be that Messiah, he was also claiming to beGod. For example, the prophet Isaiah (9:6) calls the Messiah, "MightyGod." The psalmist wrote of the Messiah, "Thy throne, 0 God, is for everand ever" (Ps. 45:6; cf. Heb. 1:8). Psalm 110:1 records a conversationbetween the Father and the Son: "Jehovah said to my Lord (Adoni), sitthou at my right hand." Jesus applied this passage to himself in Matthew22:43-44. In the great messianic prophecy of Daniel 7, the Son of Man iscalled the "ancient of days" (v. 22), a phrase used twice in the same pas-sage of God the Father (vv. 9, 13). Jesus also said he was the Messiah at histrial before the high priest. When asked, "Are you the Christ [Greek forMessiah], the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus responded, "I am; and you willsee the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with theclouds of heaven." At this, the high priest tore his robe and said, "Why dowe still need witnesses? You have heard this blasphemy!" (Mark 14:61-64). There was no doubt that in claiming to be Messiah (see also Luke24:27; Matt. 26:54), Jesus also claimed to be God.

The Old Testament forbids worshiping anyone other than God (Exod.20:1—4; Deut. 5:6-9). The New Testament agrees, showing that menrefused worship (Acts 14:15) as did angels (Rev. 22:8-9). But Jesusaccepted worship on numerous occasions, showing his claim to be God.A healed leper worshiped him (Matt. 8:2), and a ruler knelt before himwith a request (Matt. 9:18). After he stilled the storm, "those in the boatworshiped Him saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God"' (Matt. 14:33). A

group of Canaanite women (Matt. 15:25), the mother of James and John(Matt. 20:20), the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:6), all worshiped Jesuswithout one word of rebuke. But Christ also elicited worship in somecases, as when Thomas saw the risen Christ and cried out, "My Lord andmy God" (John 20:28). This could only be done by a person who seriouslyconsidered himself to be God.

Jesus also put his words on a par with God's. "You have heard that itwas said to men of old . . . But I say unto you " (Matt. 5:21—22) is repeated


over and over again. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been givento me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:18-19).God had given the Ten Commandments to Moses, but Jesus said, "A newcommandment I give to you, that you love one another" (John 13:34).Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot willpass from the Law" (Matt. 5:18), but later Jesus said of his own words,"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away"(Matt. 24:35). Speaking of those who reject him, Jesus said, "The wordthat I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (John 12:48). There isno question that Jesus expected his words to have equal authority withGod's declarations in the Old Testament.

Jesus not only asked men to believe in him and obey his command-ments, but he also asked them to pray in his name. "Whatever you ask inmy name, I will do it.... If you ask anything in my name, I will do it" (John14:13-14). "If you abide in me and my words abide in you, ask whateveryou will, and it will be done for you" (John 15:7). Jesus even insisted, "noman comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). In response to this thedisciples not only prayed in Jesus' name (1 Cor. 5:4), but prayed to Christ(Acts 7:59). Jesus certainly intended that his name be invoked both beforeGod and as God in prayer.

In view of these many clear ways in which Jesus claimed to be God, anyunbiased observer aware of the Gospels should recognize, whether heaccepts the claim or not, that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed claim to beGod in human flesh. That is, he claimed to be identical to the Jehovah ofthe Old Testament.

In addition to Jesus' claim about himself, his disciples also acknowl-edged his claim to deity. This they manifested in many ways.

In agreement with their Master, Jesus' Apostles called him "the firstand the last " (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13), " the true light " (John 1:9), their "rock "

or "stone " (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:6-8; cf. Ps. 18:2; 95:1), the "bridegroom "

(Eph. 5:28-33; Rev. 21:2), "the chief Shepherd " (1 Pet. 5:4), and " the greatShepherd" (Heb. 13:20). The Old Testament role of "redeemer" (Hos.13:14; Ps. 130:7) is given to Jesus in the New Testament (Tit. 2:13; Rev.5:9). He is seen as the forgiver of sins (Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13; cf. Jer. 31:34; Ps.130:4) and savior of the world (John 4:42; cf. Isa. 43:3). The apostles alsotaught that, "Jesus Christ ... is to judge the living and the dead" (2 Tim.4:1). All of these titles are given to Jehovah in the Old Testament but toJesus in the New.

The New Testament opens with a passage concluding that Jesus isImmanuel (God with us), which refers to the messianic prediction of Isa-iah 7:14. The very title "Christ" carries the same meaning as the Hebrewappellation "Messiah" (Anointed). In Zechariah 12:10, Jehovah says,"They will look on me whom they have pierced." But the New Testament


writers apply this passage to Jesus twice (John 19:37; Rev. 1:7) as referringto his crucifixion. Paul interprets Isaiah's message, "For I am God, andthere is no other.... To me every knee shall how and every tongueswear," (Isa. 45:22-23) as applying to his Lord, "at the name of Jesus everyknee shall bow ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord tothe glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10). The implications of this arestrong, because Paul says that all created beings will call Jesus both Mes-siah (Christ) and Jehovah (Lord).

Some things only God can do, but these very things are attributed toJesus by his disciples. He is said to be able to raise the dead (John 5, 11)and forgive sins (Acts 5:31; 13:38). Moreover, he is said to have been theprimary agent in creating the universe (John 1:2; Col. 1:16) and in sus-taining its existence (Col. 1:17). Surely only God can be said to be the Cre-ator of all things, but the disciples claim this power for Jesus.

The disciples' use of Jesus' name as the agent and recipient of prayerhas been noted (1 Cor. 5:4; Acts 7:59). Often in prayers or benedictions,Jesus' name is used alongside God's, as in, "grace to you and peace fromGod the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2). The nameof Jesus appears with equal status to God's in the so-called trinitarian for-mulas. For example, the command to go and baptize "in the name [sin-gular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19,

emphasis added). Again this association is made at the end of 2 Corin-thians, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fel-lowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (13:14). If there is only one God,then these three persons must by nature be equated.

Thomas saw his wounds and cried, "My Lord and my God!" (John20:28). Paul calls Jesus, "the one in whom the fullness of deity dwellsbodily" (Col. 2:9). In Titus, Jesus is called, "our great God and savior"(2:13), and the writer to the Hebrews says of him, "Thy throne, 0 God, isforever" (1:8). Paul says that before Christ existed in the "form of man,"which clearly refers to being really human, he existed in the "form ofGod" (Phil. 2:5-8). The parallel phrases suggest that if Jesus was fullyhuman, then he was also fully God. A similar phrase, "the image of God,"is used in Colossians 1:15 to mean the manifestation of God himself. Thisdescription is strengthened in Hebrews where it says, "He reflects theglory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature, upholding the uni-verse by the power of His word" (Neb. 1:3). The prologue to John's Gospelalso minces no words, stating, "In the beginning was the Word, and theWord was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God" (John 1:1, emphasisours).

The disciples did not simply believe that Christ was more than a man,they believed him to be greater than any created being including angels.Paul says Jesus is "far above all rule and authority and power and domin-


ion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also inthat which is to come" (Eph. 1:21). The demons submitted to his com-mand (Matt. 8:32) and even angels that refused to be worshiped are seenworshiping him (Rev. 22:8-9). The author of Hebrews presents a com-plete argument for Christ's superiority over angels saying, "For to whatangel did God ever say, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten Thee?'... And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, 'Letall God's angels worship Him'" (Heb. 1:5-6). There could be no clearerteaching that Christ was not an angel, but God whom the angels were toworship.

In summary, there is manifold testimony from Jesus himself and fromthose who knew him best that Jesus claimed to be God and that his fol-lowers believed that to be the case. They claimed for the carpenter ofNazareth unique titles, powers, prerogatives and activities that applyonly to God. Whether or not this was the case, there is no doubt that thisis what they believed and what Jesus thought of himself. As C. S. Lewisinsightfully observed, when confronted with the boldness of Christ'sclaims, we are faced with distinct alternatives.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish things that peo-ple often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher,but I don't accept Ills claim to be God." That is the one thing we must notsay. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus saidwould not be a great moral teacher. He would rather be a lunatic—on alevel with the man who says he is a poached egg—Or else he would be theDevil of Hell. 54

JESUS ' MIRACULOUS PROPHETIC CONFIRMATION TO BE GOD

To say that Jesus and his disciples made claims that he was God inhuman flesh does not in itself prove that he is God. The real question iswhether or not there is any good reason to believe that the claims aretrue. What kind of evidence did Jesus offer to support his claims to deity?The answer is: he offered unique and repeated supernatural confirma-tions of his claims, the very thing Muhammad recognized as the mark ofa true prophet in biblical times (see 2:92, 210, 248). The logic of this argu-ment goes like this:

1. A miracle is an act of God that confirms the truth claim associatedwith it.

2. Jesus offered unique and multiple lines of miraculous evidence toconfirm his claim to be God:

54. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1943), 55-56.


a) His fulfillment of prophecy,b) His sinless life and miraculous deeds, andc) His resurrection from the dead.

3. Therefore, Jesus' unique miracles confirm that he is God.

There were dozens of predictive prophecies in the Old Testamentregarding the Messiah. Consider the following predictions made centu-ries in advance that Jesus would be:

1) born of a woman (Gen. 3:15; cf. Gal. 4:4);2) born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21f.);3) "cut off" (die) 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct the city

of Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Dan. 9:24f.);55

4) of the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3 and 22:18; cf. Matt. 1:1 andGal. 3:16);

5) of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10; cf. Luke 3:23, 33 and Heb. 7:14);6) of the house of David (2 Sam. 7:12f.; cf. Matt. I :1 );7) born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; cf. Matt. 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7);8) anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:2; cf. Matt. 3:16-17);9) heralded by the messenger of the Lord (Isa. 40:3 and Mal. 3:1; cf.

Matt. 3:1-2);10) that Jesus would perform miracles (Isa. 35:5-6; cf. Matt. 9:35);11) would cleanse the temple (Mal. 3:1; cf. Matt. 21:12f.);12) would be rejected by Jews (Ps. 118:22; cf. 1 Pet. 2:7);13) die a humiliating death (Ps. 22 and Isa. 53; cf. Matt. 9:35) involving:

a) rejection by his own people (Isa. 53:3; cf. John 1:10-11; 7:5, 48);b) silence before his accusers (Isa. 53:7; cf. Matt. 27:12-19);c) mockery (Ps. 22:7-8; cf. Matt. 27:31);d) piercing of his hands and feet (Ps. 22:16; cf. Luke 23:33);e) death along with thieves (Isa. 53:12; cf. Matt. 27:44);f) prayer for his persecutors (Isa. 53:12; cf. Luke 23:43);g) piercing of his side ('Zech. 12:10; cf. John 19:34);h) burial in a rich man's tomb (Isa. 53:9; cf. Matt. 27:57-60);i) casting lots for his garments (Ps. 22:18; cf. John 19:23-24);

14) that he would rise from the dead (Ps. 2:7 and 16:10; cf. Acts 2:31and Mark 16:6);

15) ascend into heaven (Ps. 68:8; cf. Acts 1:9);16) and sit at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1; cf. Heb. 1:3).

55. Professor Harold W. Hoehner shows that this was fulfilled to the year when Jesuswas crucified in 33 A.D. See his Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1976), 115-38.


It is important to understand that these prophecies were written hun-dreds of years before Christ was born. No one could have been readingthe trends of the times or just making intelligent guesses, like the "proph-ecies" we see in the checkout line at the supermarket. They could not bedone by natural powers reading the trends of the times.

Furthermore, unlike the alleged prophecies of Muhammad in theQur'an (see Chapter 9), notice the specific nature of biblical predictions,pointing to the very time, tribe (Judah), lineage (Davidic), city of birth(Bethlehem) of Christ. What is more, even the most liberal critics admitthat the prophetic books were completed at least four hundred yearsbefore Christ and the Book of Daniel by about 165 B.C. Though there isgood evidence to date most of these books much earlier (some of thePsalms and earlier prophets were in the eighth and ninth centuries B.C.),it would make little difference. It is humanly impossible to make clear,repeated, and accurate predictions two hundred years in the future. ButGod knows all things and can predict the future with no difficulty. Soeven using the late date for the Old Testament given by critics, the fulfill-ment of these prophecies in a theistic universe is miraculous and pointsto a divine confirmation of Jesus as the Messiah.

Some have suggested that there is a natural explanation for what onlyseem to be supernatural predictions here. One explanation is that theprophecies were accidentally fulfilled in Jesus. In other words, he hap-pened to be in the right place at the right time. But what are we to sayabout the prophecies involving miracles? He just happened to make theblind man see? He just happened to he resurrected from the dead? Thesehardly seem like chance events. If there is a God who is in control of theuniverse, as we have said, then chance is ruled out. Furthermore, it isunlikely that all these events would have converged in the life of one man.Mathematicians 56 have calculated the probability of 16 predictions beingfulfilled in one man at 1 in 1045 . If we go to forty-eight predictions, theprobability is 1 in 1O157

.It is almost impossible for us to conceive of a

number that big.But it is not just a logical improbability that rules out this theory; it is

the moral implausibility of an all-powerful and all-knowing God lettingthings get out of control so that all his plans for prophetic fulfillment areruined by someone who just happened to be in the right place at theright time. God cannot lie, nor can he break a promise (Heb. 6:18). So wemust conclude that he did not allow his prophetic promises to bethwarted by chance. All the evidence points to Jesus as the divinelyappointed fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. He was God ' s manconfirmed by God's signs. In brief, if God made the predictions to be ful-

56. Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks (Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952), 108.


filled in the life of Christ, then he would not allow them to be fulfilled inthe life of any other. The God of truth would not allow a lie to be con-firmed as true.

EVIDENCE OF JESUS ' MIRACULOUS AND SINLESS LIFE

The very nature of Christ's life demonstrates his claim to deity. Tolive a truly sinless life would be a momentous accomplishment for anyhuman being in itself, but to claim to be God and offer a sinless life asevidence is another matter. Muhammad never did. 57 Some of Jesus'enemies brought false accusations against him, but the verdict of Pilateat his trial has been the verdict of history: "I find no crime in this man"(Luke 23:4). A soldier at the cross agreed saying, "Certainly this man wasinnocent" (Luke 23:47), and the thief on the cross next to Jesus said,"This man has done nothing wrong " (Luke 23:41). But the real test iswhat those who were closest to Jesus said of his character. His discipleshad lived and worked with him for several years at close range, yet theiropinions of him are not diminished at all. Peter called Christ, "a lambwithout spot or blemish" (1 Pet. 1:19) and added "no guile was found onhis lips" (2:22). John called him "Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1;cf. 3:7). Paul expressed the unanimous belief of the early church thatChrist "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21), and the writer of Hebrews says thatJesus was tempted as a man "yet without sinning" (4:15). Jesus himselfonce challenged his accusers, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (John8:46), but no one was able to find him guilty of anything. He forbid retal-iation on one 's enemies (Matt. 5:38-42) and, unlike Muhammad, henever used the sword to spread his message (Matt. 26:52). This beingthe case, the impeccable character of Christ gives a double testimony tothe truth of his claim. It provides supporting evidence as he suggested,but it also assures us that he was not lying when he said that he wasGod.

Beyond the moral aspects of his life, we are confronted with the mirac-ulous nature of Jesus' ministry, which even Muslims acknowledge is adivine confirmation of a prophet's claim. Jesus, however, did perform anunprecedented display of miracles. He turned water to wine (John 2:7f.),walked on water (Matt. 14:25), multiplied bread (John 6:1 I f.), opened theeyes of the blind (John 9:7f.), made the lame to walk (Mark 2:3f.), cast outdemons (Mark 3:11f.), healed the multitudes of all kinds of sickness(Matt. 9:35), including leprosy (Mark 1:40-42), and even raised the deadto life on several occasions (John 11:43-44; Luke 7:11-15; Mark 5:35f.).When asked if he was the Messiah, Jesus used his miracles as evidence to

57. Muslims believe in the basic sinlessness of Muhammad and all prophets, at least af-ter becoming a prophet. However, Muhammad fell far short of this claim.


support the claim saying, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: theblind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and thedeaf hear, and the dead are raised up" (Matt. 11:4-5). This special out-pouring of miracles was a special sign that the Messiah had come (see Isa.35:5-6). The Jewish leader Nicodemus even said, "Rabbi, we know thatyou are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that youdo unless God is with Him" (John 3:2). To a first-century Jew, miraclessuch as Christ performed were clear indications of God's approval of theperformer's message. But in Jesus' case, part of that message was that hewas God in human flesh. Thus, his miracles verify his claim to be truedeity.

JESUS ' MIRACULOUS RESURRECTION

The third line of evidence supporting Jesus' claim to be God is thegreatest of them all. Nothing like it is claimed by any other religion andno miracle has as much historical evidence to confirm it. Jesus Christrose from the dead on the third day in the same physical body, now trans-formed, in which he died. In this resurrected physical body he appearedto more than five hundred of his disciples on twelve different occasionsover a forty-day period and conversed with them. Consider the over-whelming evidence summarized in this chart:

THE ORDER OF THE TWELVE APPEARANCES OF CHRIST

OTHERPERSONS SAW HEARD TOUCHED EVIDENCE

1. Mary X X X Empty tomb(John 20:10-18)

2. Mary & Women X X X Empty tomb(Matt. 28:1-10)

3. Peter X X* Empty tomb,(1 Cor. 15:5) Clothes

4. Two Disciples X X Ate with him(Luke 24:13-35)

5. Ten Apostles X X X** Saw wounds,(Luke 24:36-49; Ate foodJohn 20:19-23)

6. Eleven Apostles X X X** Saw wounds(John 20:24-31)

7. Seven Apostles X X Ate food(John 21)

8. All Apostles X X(Matt. 28:16-20;Mark 16:14-18)


OTHERPERSONS SAW HEARD TOUCHED EVIDENCE

9. 500 Brethren X X*(1 Cor. 15:6)

10.James X X*(1 Cor. 15:7)

11.All Apostles X X Ate with him(Acts 1:4—8)

12.Paul X X(Acts 9:1-9; 1 Cor. 15:8)

*Implied **Offered himself to be touched

The nature, extent, and times of these appearances remove any doubtthat Jesus indeed rose from the dead in the numerically same body offlesh and bones in which he died. Notice he appeared to over five hun-dred people on twelve different occasions scattered over a forty-dayperiod of time (Acts 1:3). During each appearance he was seen and heardwith the natural senses of the observer. On four occasions he was eithertouched or offered himself to be touched. Twice he definitely wastouched with physical hands. Four times Jesus ate physical food with hisdisciples. Four times they saw his empty tomb, and twice he showedthem his crucifixion scars. I le literally exhausted the ways it is possibleto prove that he rose bodily from the grave. No event in the ancientworld has more eyewitness verification than does the resurrection ofJesus.

What is even more amazing about the resurrection of Christ is the factthat both the Old Testament and Jesus himself predicted that he wouldrise from the dead. This highlights the evidential value of the resurrectionof Christ in a unique way.

Jewish prophets predicted the resurrection both in specific statementsand by logical deduction. First, there are specific passages that the apos-tles cited from the Old Testament as applying to the resurrection ofChrist. Peter says that since we know that David died and was buried, hemust have been speaking of the Christ when he said, "Thou wilt notabandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay"(Ps. 16:8-11 quoted in Acts 2:25-31). No doubt it was passages like thisthat Paul used in the Jewish synagogues when "he argued with them fromthe scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christto suffer and to rise from the dead" (Acts 17:2-3).

Also, the Old Testament teaches the resurrection by logical deduction.There is clear teaching that the Messiah was to die (Isa. 53; Ps. 22) andequally evident teaching that he is to have an enduring political reignfrom Jerusalem (Isa. 9:6; Dan. 2:44; Zech. 13:1). There is no viable way to


reconcile these two teachings unless the Messiah who dies is raised fromthe dead to reign forever. 58 Jesus died before he could begin a reign. Onlyby his resurrection could the prophecies of a Messianic kingdom be ful-filled.

On several occasions Jesus also predicted his resurrection from thedead. Even in the earliest part of his ministry, he said, "Destroy this tem-ple [of my body] and in three days I will raise it up again" (John 2:19, 21).In Matthew 12:40, later he said, "As Jonah was three days and nights inthe belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and nights inthe heart of the earth." To those who had seen his miracles and still stub-bornly would not believe, he often said, "An evil and adulterous genera-tion seeks for a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign ofJonah " (Matt. 12:39; 16:4). After Peter ' s confession, "He began to teachthem that the son of man must suffer many things ... and be killed, andafter three days rise again" (Mark 8:31), and this became a central part ofhis teaching from that point until his death (Mark 14:58; Matt. 27:63).Further, Jesus taught that he would raise himself from the dead, saying ofhis life, "I have the power to lay it down and I have the power to take it upagain " (John10:18).59

In brief, Jesus claimed to be God and proved to be God. He proved itby a convergence of three unprecedented sets of miracles: fulfilledprophecy, a miraculous life, and his resurrection from the dead. Thisunique convergence of supernatural events not only confirms his claimto be God in human flesh, but it also demonstrates Jesus' claim to be theonly way to God. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No onecomes to the Father except by Me" (John 14:6; cf. 10:1, 9-10). Jesus' apos-tles added, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other nameunder heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12;cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).

ONE LAST OBJECTIONEarlier we showed how David Hume's argument about the self-canceling

nature of miracle claims undermined the Muslim claim about Muhammad

58. There is no indication in the Old Testament, as some Jewish scholars have suggest-ed, that there were to be two Messiahs, one suffering and one reigning. References to theMessiah are always in the singular (cf. Dan. 9:26; Isa. 9:6; 53:1f.), and no second Messiah isever designated.

59. Famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, argued that whenever a "risky predic-tion" is fulfilled, it counts as confirmation of the theory that comes with it. If so, then thefulfillment of Jesus' prediction of his own resurrection is confirmation of his claim to beGod. For what could be riskier than predicting your own resurrection? If a person will notaccept that as evidence of a truth claim, then he has a bias that will not accept anything asevidence.


(see Chapter 4). And we have just shown how this very same argumentproves that Christ's claims are miraculously confirmed. It remains now toshow that this divine confirmation is unique to Christianity and no otherreligion.

Hume argues that "every miracle, therefore, pretended to have beenwrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles) .. .so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every othersystem: and in destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit ofthose miracles on which that system was established." In short, since amiracle's "direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it isattributed, so has it the same force . . . to overthrow every other system." 60

In other words, miracles, being all of the same kind, are self-canceling aswitnesses to the truth of a religious system.

Rather than being a disproof of New Testament miracles, Hume'sargument unwittingly supports the authenticity of Jesus' miracles.Forwhile this is a sound argument against all non-Christian miracle claims,such as those of Islam, it is not an argument against the unique miraclesperformed by Christ. We may restate the argument this way.

1. All non-Christian religions (which claim miracles) are supportedby similar "miracles" claims. 61

2. But such "miracles" have no evidential value (since they are self-canceling and based on poor testimony).

3. Therefore, no non-Christian religion is supported by miracles.

If this is so, then one can argue, in addition, that only Christianity isdivinely confirmed as true.

1. Only Christianity has unique miracle claims confirmed by suffi-cient testimony.

2. What has unique miraculous confirmation of its claims is true (asopposed to contrary views).

3. Therefore, Christianity is true (as opposed to contrary views, suchas Islam).

SUMMARY

No other world religious leader has been confirmed by a convergenceof unique miracles as Jesus has. Indeed, as we have seen (in Chapter 8),Muhammad refused to perform miracles like Jesus did to support his

60. Ibid., 129-30.61. For a discussion of so-called Satanic miracles and other alleged miracles, see N. L.

Geisler, Signs and Wonders ( Wheaton: Tyndale I louse, 1988), esp. Chapters 4 through 8.


claim (see 3:181-84). In fact, no other world religious leader claimed to beGod, including Muhammad. And, regardless of what they claimed forthemselves, no other world religious leader ever proved his claims by ful-filling numerous prophecies made hundreds of years in advance, living amiraculous and sinless life, and predicting and accomplishing his ownresurrection from the dead. Thus, Jesus alone deserves to be recognizedas the Son of God, God incarnated in human flesh.

12

A DEFENSE OF THE TRINITY

As Christian doctrine, the deity of Christ and the Trinity are insepara-ble. If one accepts the biblical teaching about the deity of Christ, then hehas already acknowledged that there is more than one person in the God-head. Conversely, if the doctrine of the Trinity is received, then the deityof Christ is already part of it. This is precisely why Muslims reject both,since to accept either is to them a denial of the absolute unity of God.

MUSLIM MISUNDERSTANDING OF BIBLICAL DATAON THE TRINITY

There are several obstacles in the Muslim mind that hinder acceptingthe Christian doctrine of the triunity of God. Some are philosophical andothers are biblical. We have already discussed how Islamic scholarsengage in an arbitrary and selective use of the biblical texts as it suits theirpurposes (see Chapter 10). However, even the texts they pronounce"authentic" are twisted or misinterpreted to support their teachings. Anexamination of several of the more important ones will illustrate ourpoint.

Perhaps no concept in all of Christian terminology receives such a vio-lent reaction from Muslims as Jesus is the "only begotten" son of God.This raises red flags immediately in the Islamic mind. Indeed, as we shallsee, they understand it in a grossly anthropomorphic manner. Clearingaway this misunderstanding is necessary to open the Muslim mind to theconcept of the Trinity.

The Bible refers to Christ as the "only begotten" Son of God (John1:18; cf. 3:16). However, Muslim scholars often misconstrue this in afleshly, carnal sense of someone literally begetting children. For them, to

263


beget implies a physical act. This they believe is absurd, since God is aSpirit with no body. As the noted Muslim apologist Deedat contends,"He [God] does not beget because begetting is an animal act. It belongsto the lower animal act of sex. We do not attribute such an act to God." 1

For the Islamic mind begetting is creating and "God cannot createanother God.... He cannot create another uncreated." 2 The foregoingstatements reveal the degree to which the biblical concept of Christ'ssonship is misunderstood by Muslim scholars. For no orthodox Chris-tian scholar believes that "begat" is to be equated with "made" or "cre-ate." No wonder Dawud concludes that from a "Muslim point of beliefthe Christian dogma concerning the eternal birth or generation of theSon is blasphemy." 3

However, this extreme reaction to Christ's eternal Sonship is bothunnecessary and unfounded. The phrase "only begotten" does not referto physical generation but to a special relationship with the Father. Likethe biblical phrase "Firstborn" (Col. 1:15), it means priority in rank, notin time (cf. vs. 16-17). It could be translated, as the New InternationalVersion does, God's "One and Only" Son. It does not imply creation bythe Father but unique relation to him. Just as an earthly father and sonhave a special filial relationship, even so the eternal Father and his eter-nal Son are uniquely related. It does not refer to any physical generationbut to an eternal procession from the Father. Just as for Muslims theWord of God (Qur'an) is not identical to God but eternally proceeds fromhim, even so for Christians, Christ, God's "Word" (4:171) eternally pro-ceeds from him. Words like "generation" and "procession" are used byChristians of Christ in a filial and relational sense, not in a carnal andphysical sense.

Misunderstanding of Christ's sonship reaches an apex when someMuslim scholars confuse it with his virgin Birth. Nazir-Ali notes that "inthe Muslim mind the generation of the Son often means his birth of theVirgin Mary."4 As Shorrosh notes, many Muslims believe Christians have" made Mary a goddess, Jesus her son, and God almighty her husband." 5

With such a carnal misrepresentation of a spiritual reality, little wonderMuslims reject the Christian concept of eternal Father and Son.

Islamic misunderstanding of the Trinity is encouraged by the wordsof Muhammad who said, "0 Jesus, son of Mary! didst thou say untomankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?" (5:119).

1. Ahmed Deedat in a debate with Anis A. Shorrosh cited in Shorrosh, 254.2. Ibid., 259.3. Dawud, 205.4. Nazir-Ali, 29.5. See Shorrosh, 114.

A Defense of the Trinity 265

Even Christians living hundreds of years before Muhammad con-demned such a gross misunderstanding of the sonship of Christ. TheChristian writer Lactantius, writing about A.D. 306, said, "He who hearsthe words 'Son of God' spoken must not conceive in his mind such greatwickedness as to fancy that God procreated through marriage and unionwith any female,—a thing which is not done except by an animal pos-sessed of a body and subject to death." Furthermore, "since God isalone, with whom could He unite? or [sic], since He was of such greatmight as to be able to accomplish whatever I le wished, He certainly hadno need for the comradeship of another for the purpose of creating."6 Insummation, the Muslim rejection of the eternal sonship of Christ isbased on a serious misunderstanding of the Christian concept of what itmeans for Christ to be God's Son. "Son" should be understood in a figu-rative sense (like the Arabic word, ibn), not in a physical sense (as in theArabic word, walad).

Another text often distorted by Muslim scholars is this great passageproclaiming Christ's deity: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Wordwas with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Without any textualsupport in the thousands of Greek manuscripts, they render the lastphrase: "and the Word was God's." Muslim scholar Dawud declares,without any warrant whatsoever, "the Greek form of the genitive case'Theou,' i.e., 'God's' was corrupted into `Theos'; that is, `God,' in thenominative form of the name!" 7

This mistranslation is arbitrary and without any basis in fact, since inthe nearly 5,700 manuscripts there is no authority for it whatsoever. Fur-thermore, it is contrary to the rest of the message of John's Gospel wherethe claims that Christ is God are repeated over and over (John 8:58; 10:30;12:41; 20:28).

When Jesus challenged Thomas to believe, after Thomas saw him inhis physical resurrection body, Thomas confessed Jesus' deity, declar-ing, "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28). Many Muslim writers diminishthis proclamation of Christ's deity by reducing it to a mere exclamation,"my God!" Deedat declares, "What? He was calling Jesus his Lord and hisGod? No. This is an exclamation people call out." He adds, "If I said toAnis, 'my God,' would I mean Anis is my God? No. This is a particularexpression." 8

However, there are several clear indications that this is a misunder-standing of Thomas's proclamation. First, in an obvious reference to thecontent of Thomas's confession of Jesus as "my Lord and my God," Jesus

6. Pfander, 164.7. See Dawud, 16-17.8. See Shorrosh, 278.


blessed him for what he had correctly "seen" and "believed" (John 20:29).Second, Thomas's confession of Christ's deity comes at the climax of theGospel where Jesus' disciples are said to gain increasing belief in Christbased on his miraculous signs (John 2:11; 12:37). Third, Thomas's confes-sion of Christ's deity fits with the stated theme of the Gospel of John "thatyou may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believ-ing you may have life in His Name" (John 20:31).

No doubt there was an exclamatory note in Thomas's pronouncementof Christ's deity, but to reduce it to a meaningless emotional ejaculationboth misses the point of the passage and borders on claiming that Jesusblessed Thomas for profanity (i.e., using God's Name in vain).

In Matthew 22:43, citing Psalm 110, Jesus says, "How then does Davidin the Spirit call Him [the Messiah] 'Lord?'" According to the Muslimscholar Dawud, "By his expression that the 'Lord,' or the 'Adon,' couldnot be a son of David, Jesus excludes himself from that title." 9

However, a careful look at the context of this passage reveals just theopposite. Jesus stumped his skeptical Jewish questioners by puttingthem in a dilemma. Flow could David call the Messiah "Lord" (as he didin Psalm 110:1), when the Scriptures also say the Messiah would be the"Son of David" (which they do in 2 Sam. 7:12f.)? The only answer to thisis that the Messiah must be both man to be David's son (offspring) andGod to be David's Lord. In other words, in affirming these two truthsfrom Scripture, Jesus is claiming to be both God and man. The Islamicmind should have no more difficulty understanding how Jesus can unitein one person both divine and human natures than their own belief thathuman beings combine both spirit and flesh, the enduring and the tran-sient in one person (89:27-30; cf. 3:185). For even according to Muslimbelief, whatever Almighty God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, wills inhis infinite Wisdom he is also able to accomplish for "He is the irresis-table " (6:61). 10

Many Islamic scholars claim that Jesus denied being God when herebuked the rich young ruler, saying, "Why do you call Me good? No oneis good except God alone" (Mark 10:18). However, a careful look at thistext in its context reveals that Jesus never denied his deity here. He simplyrebuked this wealthy young man for making this careless appellationwithout thinking through its implication. Nowhere did Jesus say, "I amnot God, as you claim." Nor did he say, "I am not good." Indeed, both theBible and Qur'an teach that Jesus is sinless (John 8:46; Heb. 4:15). Rather,Jesus challenged him to examine what he was really saying when hecalled Jesus "Good Master. " In essence, Jesus was saying, " Do you realize

9. See Dawud, 89.10. Others translate this "He [God] is Omnipotent over His slaves" (Pickthall translation).


what you are saying when you call Me 'Good Master'? Only God is good.Are you calling me God?" The fact that the young ruler refused to do whatJesus said, proves that he did not really consider Jesus his master. Butnowhere did Jesus deny that he was either the Master or God of the richyoung ruler. Indeed, elsewhere Jesus freely claimed to be both Lord andMaster of all (Matt. 7:21-27; 28:18; John 12:40).

Jesus ' assertion that "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) is alsomisunderstood by Muslims. It is taken out of its actual context to meanthat the Father is greater in nature, but Jesus meant only that the Fatheris greater in office. This is evident from the fact that in this same Gospelof John Jesus claims to be the "I Am" or Yahweh of the Old Testament(Exod. 3:14). He also claimed to be " equal with God " (John 10:30, 33). Inaddition, he received worship on numerous occasions (John 9:38; cf.Matt. 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52). He also said, " Hewho does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him"(John 5:23).

Further, when Jesus spoke of the Father being "greater" it was in thecontext of his "going to the Father" (John 14:28). Only a few chapters laterJesus speaks to the Father, saying, "I have finished the work which Youhave given me to do" (John 17:4). But this functional difference of his roleas Son in the very next verse reveals that it was not to be used to diminishthe fact that Jesus was equal to the Father in nature and glory. For Jesussaid, "0, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which 1had with You before the world was" (John 17:5).

Another verse misunderstood by Muslim critics is John 17:21, whereJesus said of his disciples, "That they all may be one, as You, Father, arein Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us." 1 I. M. Baagil argueson the basis of this that if Jesus is God because he is in God, why are thedisciples not God, as they are like Jesus also in God? 11 The misunder-standing here is simple but basic: Jesus is speaking relationally not essen-tially. That is, we can have an intimate relationship with God as Jesus did.But we cannot be of the same essence of God as Jesus was, for he sharedGod's eternal glory "before the world was" (v. 3). Jesus is in God becausehe is God. However, we are not in God because we are God, but onlybecause we have a relationship with him.

This survey of some key biblical passages misinterpreted by Muslimsillustrates an important point made by an Islamic scholar. He correctlynoted that "Christian missionaries, or certain Orientalists who are eitherthemselves theologians, or who are well disposed to Christian theology... overestimate the role of Jesus in the Koran. They are misled by the wayof understanding Jesus which they retain from their Christian Tradition.

11. Christian Muslim Dialogue (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Maramer, 1984), 17.


It is no surprise that, under such circumstances, they arrive at false con-clusions and evaluations." 12 But this sword cuts both ways. For manyMuslim scholars do the same with the Bible, reading their own misunder-standing into the text rather than seeking to understand what the textactually teaches. This is particularly true when it comes to understandingwhat the Bible claims about God and Christ as the Son of God. So just asChristians should allow Muslims to interpret their own Book (the Qur'an)on these matters, even so Muslims should allow Christians to interprettheir own Book (the Bible). For example, just as it is wrong-headed forChristians to twist verses in the Qur'an to teach the deity of Christ, like-wise it is misdirected for Muslims to distort verses of the Bible to deny thedeity of Christ. For someone to read the New Testament and not see thedeity of Christ is like a person looking up on a bright and cloudless dayclaiming that he cannot see the sun!

MUSLIM MISUNDERSTANDING OFPHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS

In addition to misunderstanding the biblical data, Islamic scholarsalso offer philosophical objections to the doctrine of the Trinity. Thesetoo must be cleared away before they will be able to understand the bib-lical teaching about a plurality of persons within the unity of God.

The emphasis on the oneness of God is fundamental to Islam. OneMuslim scholar said, "In fact, Islam, like other religions before it in theiroriginal clarity and purity, is nothing other than the declaration of theUnity of God, and its message is a call to testify to this Unity." 13 Anotherauthor adds, "The Unity of Allah is the distinguishing characteristic ofIslam. This is the purest form of monotheism, i.e., the worship of AllahWho was neither begotten nor beget nor had any associates with Him inHis Godhead. Islam teaches this in the most unequivocal terms.

"14

Because of this uncompromising emphasis on God's absolute unity, inIslam the greatest of all sins is the sin of shirk, or assigning partners toGod. The Qur'an sternly declares "God forgiveth not (The sin of) joiningother gods With Him; but He forgiveth Whom He pleaseth other sinsThan this: one who joins Other gods with God, I lath strayed far, far away(From the Right) " (4:116). However, as we will see, this is a misunder-standing of the unity of God.

12. Small Balic, "The Image of Jesus in Contemporary Islamic Theology," in Schimmeland Falaturi, 3.

13. Mahmud, 20.14. Ajijola, 55.


Both Islam and Christianity proclaim that God is one in essence. Whatis in dispute is whether there can be any plurality of persons in this unityof nature. The inadequacies in the Muslim view of God arise in part outof their misunderstanding of Christian monotheism. Many Muslimsmisconstrue the Christian view of God as tritheism rather than as mono-theism. This arises because of a misunderstanding of the very nature oftrinitarianism. Christians do not confess three gods; they believe in onlyone God. This is evident from both the biblical base and the theologicalexpression of the doctrine. The Bible declares emphatically: "The Lordour God, the Lord is one! " (Deut. 6:4). Both Jesus (Mark 12:29) and theapostles repeat this formula in the New Testament (1 Cor. 8:4, 6). Andearly Christian creeds speak of Christ being one in "substance" or"essence" with God. The Athenasian Creed, for example, reads: "Weworship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confoundingthe Persons; nor dividing the Substance (Essence)." So Christianity is aform of monotheism in that it believes in one and only one God, notthree gods.

Many Muslims complain that the Christian concept of the Trinity istoo complex. They forget, however, that truth is not always simple. AsC. S. Lewis aptly puts it, "If Christianity was something we were makingup, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete,in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? Weare dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no factsto bother about."

15

The fact confronting Christians that led them to formulate this com-plex truth was, of course, the claim of Jesus of Nazareth to be God (seeChapter 11). This led them of necessity to posit a plurality within deityand thus the doctrine of the Trinity, since this Jesus was not the same asthe one whom he addressed as Father. So Christians believe and Muslimsdeny that there are three persons in this one God. At this point the prob-lem gets philosophical. One aspect of the problem can be expressed inmathematical terms.

Muslim scholars make a big point of computing the mathematicali mpossibility of the Trinity. After all, does not 1+1+1=3? It certainly doesif you add them, but Christians insist that this is the wrong way to under-stand the Trinity. The triunity of God is more like 1x1x1=1 . In other

words, we multiply, not add, the one God in three persons. That is, Godis triune, not triplex. His one essence has multiple personalities. Thus,there is no more mathematical problem in conceiving the Trinity thanthere is in understanding 1 to the third power (1 3 ).

15. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 145.


At the heart of the Muslim inability to understand the Trinity is theNeo-Platonic concept of oneness. The second-century A.D. philosopher,Plotinus, who heavily influenced the thinking of the Middle Ages, viewedGod (the Ultimate) as the One, an absolute unity in which is no multiplic-ity at all. This One was so absolutely simple that it could not even knowitself, since self-knowledge implies a distinction between knower andknown. It was not until it emanated one level down (in the Nous, or Mind)that it could reflect back on itself and therefore know itself. For Plotinus,the One itself was beyond knowing, beyond consciousness, and evenbeyond being. It was so undividedly simple that in itself it had no mind,thoughts, personality, or consciousness. In brief, it was void of every-thing, even being. Thus, it could not be known, except by its effects that,however, did not resemble itself. 16

It is not difficult to see strong similarities between the Plotinian andMuslim views of God (see Chapters 1 and 7). Nor is it hard to see the dif-ficulty with this view. It preserves a rigid unity in God but only at theexpense of real personality. It clings to a rigid simplicity but only by sac-rificing his relatability. In short, it leaves us with an empty and barrenconcept of deity. By reducing God to a bare unity we are left with a barrenunity. As Joseph Ratzinger insightfully notes,

The unrelated, unrelatable, absolutely one could not he a person. There isno such thing as a person in the categorical singular. This is already appar-ent in the words in which the concept of person grew up; the Greek word"prosopon" means literally "(a) look towards"; with the prefix "pros"(toward) it includes the notion of relatedness as an integral part of itself... .To this extent the overstepping of the singular is implicit in the concept ofperson. 17

For Muslims God not only has unity but he has singularity. But theseare not the same. It is possible to have unity without singularity. For therecould be plurality within the unity. Indeed, this is precisely what the Trin-ity is, namely, a plurality of persons within the unity of one essence.Human analogies help to illustrate the point. My mind, my thoughts, andmy words have a unity, but they are not a singularity, since they are alldifferent. Likewise, Christ can be an expression of the same nature as Godwithout being the same person as the Father.

In this connection, Muslim monotheism sacrifices plurality in anattempt to avoid duality. In avoiding the one extreme of admitting any

16.Plotinus, The Enneads, trans. Stephen MacKenna (London: Faber and Faber Ltd.,1966), 1, 6; III, 8-9; V, 1, 8; VI, 8, 18.

17. Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, trans. J. R. Foster (New York: TheSeabury Press, 1979), 128-29.


partners to God, Islam goes to the other extreme and denies any personalplurality in God. But, as Joseph Ratzinger observes, "the belief in theTrinity, which recognizes the plurality in the unity of God, is the only wayto the final elimination of dualism as a means of expanding pluralityalongside unity; only through this belief is the positive validation of plu-rality given a definite base. God stands above singular and plural. Hebursts bothcategories."18

A DEFENSE OF THE BIBLICAL CONCEPTOF THE TRINITY

Since both Muslims and Christians agree that there is at least one per-son in God, the person Christians call Father, and since we have alreadygiven a defense of the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is God the Son (seeChapter 11), it remains only to say a word about the Holy Spirit of God.

The same revelation from God that declares Christ to be the Son ofGod also mentions another member of the triunity of God called theSpirit of God, or Holy Spirit. He too is equally God with the Father and theSon, and he too is a distinct person. The deity of the Holy Spirit is revealedin several ways. First, he is called "God" (Acts 5:3—4). Second, he pos-sesses the attributes of deity such as omnipresence (cf. Ps. 139:7—12) andomniscience (1 Cor. 2:10-11). Third, he is associated with God the Fatherin the act of creation (Gen. 1:2). Fourth, he is involved with the othermembers of the Godhead in the work of redemption (John 3:5—6; Rom.8:9f.; Titus 3:5—7). Fifth, he is associated with the other members of theTrinity under the one "name" of God (Matt. 28:18-20). Finally, the HolySpirit appears along with the Father and Son in Christian benedictions(2 Cor. 13:14).

Not only does the Holy Spirit possess deity but he also has his own per-sonality. He is one with God in essence but different in person. That he isa distinct person is clear from several basic facts. The Holy Spirit isaddressed with the personal pronoun "he " (John 14:26; 16:13). He doesthings only persons can do, such as teach (John 14:26; 1 John 2:27), con-vict of sin (John 16:7—7), and be grieved by our sin (Eph. 4:30). Finally, the

Holy Spirit has all the characteristics of personality, namely, intellect(1 Cor. 2:10-11), will (1 Cor. 12:11), and feeling (Eph. 4:30).

That the three members of the Trinity are distinct persons, and notone and the same person is clear from the fact that each person is men-tioned in distinction from the other. For one thing, the Father and Soncarried on conversations with each other. The Son prayed to the Father(John 17). The Father spoke from heaven about the Son at his baptism

18. Ibid.


(Matt. 3:15-17). Indeed, the Holy Spirit was present at the same time,revealing that they are three distinct persons, coexisting simultaneously.Further, the fact that they have separate titles (Father, Son, and Spirit)indicate they are not one person. Also, each member of the Trinity hasspecial functions that help us to identify them. For example, the Fatherplanned salvation (John 3:16; Eph. 1:4); the Son accomplished it by theCross (John 17:4; 19:30; Heb. 1:1–2) and resurrection (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor.15:1-6), and the Holy Spirit applies it to the lives of the believers (John 3:5;Eph. 4:30; Titus 3:5-7). The Son submits to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28),and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14).

The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proven by human reason; it isonly known because it is revealed by special revelation (in the Bible).However, just because it is beyond reason does not mean that it goesagainst reason. It is not irrational or contradictory, as Muslim scholarsbelieve.

The philosophical law of noncontradiction informs us that some-thing cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the samesense. This is the fundamental law of all rational thought, and the doc-trine of the Trinity does not violate it. This can be shown by stating firstof all what the Trinity is not. The Trinity is not the belief that God isthree persons and only one person at the same time and in the samesense. That would be a contradiction. Rather, it is the belief that thereare three persons in one nature. This may be a mystery, but it is not acontradiction. That is, it may go beyond reason's ability to comprehendcompletely, but it does not go against reason's ability to apprehendconsistently.

Further, the Trinity is not the belief that there are three natures in onenature or three essences in one essence. That would be a contradiction.Rather, Christians affirm that there are three persons in one essence. Thisis not contradictory because it makes a distinction between person andessence. Or, to put it in terms of the law of noncontradiction, while Godis one and many at the same time, he is not one and many in the samesense. He is one in the sense of his essencebut many in the sense of his persons. So

The Trinitythere is no violation of the law of noncon-tradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity. Who'

Perhaps a model of the Trinity will (Father)help to grasp its intelligibility. When wesay God has one essence and three per-

Whatsons we mean he has one What and threeWhos. Consider the following diagram:

Who2Who3

Notice that the three Whos (persons) (Son) (Holy Spirit)each share the same What (essence). So


God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is differ-ent, yet they share a common nature.

God is one in his substance but three in his relationships. The unity isin his essence (what God is), and the plurality is in God's persons (how herelates). This plurality of relationships is both internal and external.Within the Trinity each member relates to the other in a certain way. Forexample, the Father is related to the Son as Father, and the Son is relatedto the Father as Son. That is their external and internal relationship by thevery makeup of the Trinity. Also, the Father sends the Spirit, and theSpirit testifies of the Son (John 14:26). These are their functions by theirvery participation in the unity of the Godhead. Each having a differentrelationship to the other, but all sharing the same essence.

No analogy of the Trinity is perfect, but some are better than others.First, some bad illustrations should be repudiated. The Trinity is not likea chain with three links. For these are three separate and separable parts,but God is neither separated or separable. Neither is God like the sameactor playing three different parts in a play. For God is simulateouslythree persons, not one person playing three sucessive roles. Nor is Godlike the three states of water: solid, liquid, and gaseous. For normallywater is not in all three of these states at the same time, but God is alwaysthree persons at the same time. Unlike other bad analogies, at least thisone does not imply tritheism. However, it does reflect another heresyknown as modalism.

Most erroneous illustrations of the Trinity tend to support the chargethat trinitarianism is really tritheism, since they contain separable parts.The more helpful analogies retain unity while they show a simultaneousplurality. There are several that fit this description.

A Mathematical Illustration of the Trinity. As noted above, God is like1 3 (1x1x1). Notice there are three ones but they equal only one, notthree. This is precisely what there is in God, namely, three persons whoare only one God. Of course, no illustration of the Trinity is perfect, butthis does show how there can be both three and one at the same time inan indivisible reationship. Viewed in this way it is a good illustration ofthe Trinity.

A Geometric Illustration of the Trinity.Perhaps the most widely used illustra-tion of the Trinity is the triangle. It is usu- Father

ally put in this form.Notice that there is only one triangle, is

yet there are three corners. Observe also I `' Godthat, if there is to be a triangle, these cor-ners must be inseparable and simulta-neous. In this sense it is a good illustra- Son Is NOT Holy Spirit


tion of the Trinity. Of course, the Fathertriangle is finite and God is infinite,so it is not a perfect illustration. Butfor the point it is trying to make itserves its well. Also, b Divinepurpose y Natureadding a circle touching (but notoverlapping) with the lower left cor- Son Holy Spiritner of the triangle, some of the mys-Human Naturetery can be taken from the way thetwo natures of Christ relate to hisWho1

one person. (Father)We must point out that Christ is

one person (the lower left point of1the triangle), yet he has two na- What Nature)tures. His divine nature is the trian-gle and his human nature is the cir- Who2Who3

cle touching it. They unite at that (Son) (Holy Spirit)

point. That is, his two natures are2cojoined in one person. Or, in terms What

(Human Nature )of the above model, in Christ thereare two Whats and one Who, whereas, in God there are three Whos andone What.

It should be pointed out in this connection that there are two ways notto diagram the relation between the two natures of Christ. Each is consid-ered a heresy by orthodox Christians.

Monophysite Error Nestorian Error

HumanNature

In the first diagram where the circle overlaps with the triangle we havethe monophysite heresy that confuses the two natures of Christ. This isnot only heresy but is also an absurdity, since the divine nature of Christis infinite and the human nature is finite. And it is impossible to have aninfinite finite, an unlimited limited.

The second diagram where the circle and triangle do not even touch isthe Nestorian heresy, which posits two persons as well as two natures in


Christ. If this were so, then when Christ sacrificed his life on the cross, itwas not the person who is also divine, the Son of God, who died for us. Inthis case, the atoning sacrifice of Christ would have no divine value andcould not be efficacious for our sins. Only if one and the same person,who is both God and man, dies on the cross for our sin can we be saved.For unless Jesus is both God and man he cannot reconcile God and man.But the Bible says clearly, "there is one God, and one mediator betweenGod and man, the man Christ Jesus " (1 Tim. 2:5).

Since Christ is one Who (person) with two Whats (natures), wheneverone question is asked about him it must be separated into two questions,one applying to each nature. For example, did he get tired? Answer: asGod, no; as man, yes. Did Christ get hungry? In his divine nature, no; inhis human nature, yes. Did Christ die? In his human nature, he did die.But in his divine nature he did not die. The person who died was the God-man, but his Godness did not die.

When this same logic is applied to other theological questions raisedby Muslims it yields the same kind of answer. Did Jesus know everything?As God he did, since God is omniscient. But as man Jesus said he did notknow the time of his second coming (Matt. 24:36), and as a child he didn'tknow everything, since "he increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).

Another often asked question is: Could Jesus sin? The answer is thesame: as God he could not have sinned; as man he could have sinned (buthe didn't). God cannot sin. For example, the Bible says "it is impossiblefor God to lie" (Heb. 6:18; cf. Titus 1:2). Yet Jesus was "in all pointstempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). That is to say, while henever sinned (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 3:3), he was really temptedand therefore it was possible for him to sin. Otherwise, his temptationwould have been a charade. Jesus possessed the power of free choice,which means that whatever moral choice he made, he could have doneotherwise. This means that when he chose not to sin (which was always),he could have sinned (but did not) as man.

Dividing every question of Christ into two and referring them to eachnature unlocks a lot of theological puzzles that otherwise remainshrouded in mystery. And it makes it possible to avoid alleged logicalcontradictions that are urged upon Christians by Muslims and by othernonbelievers.

A Moral Illustration of the Trinity. One illustration, suggested by St.Augustine, has value in illuminating the Trinity. The Bible informs us that" God is love" (1 John 4:16). But love is triune, since it involves a lover, theloved one (beloved), and a spirit of love between them. To apply this tothe Trinity, the Father is the Lover; the Son is the Beloved (i.e., the Oneloved), and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love. Yet love is one—three in


one. This illustration has the advantage of being personal, since itinvolves love, a characteristic that flows only from persons.

An Anthropological Illustration. Since man is made in the image ofGod (Gen. 1:27), it should be no surprise that he bears some kind of sim-ilarity to the Trinity in human beings. First, we wish to disown trichotomy(that man is body, soul, and spirit) as an appropriate illustration of theTrinity. For even if true (and many Christians reject it for a dichotomy ofjust body and soul), it would be a bad illustration. Body and soul can beand are separated at death (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; Rev. 6:9), but the natureand persons of the Trinity cannot he separated.

A better illustration based in human nature would be, as suggestedearlier, the relation between our mind, its ideas, and the expression ofthese ideas in words. There is obviously a unity among all three of thesewithout there being an identity. In this sense, they illustrate the Trinity.

Islamic Illustrations of Plurality in Unity. Perhaps the best illustrationof a plurality in deity for the Muslim mind is, as we mentioned earlier (inChapter 11), the relation between the Qur 'an and God. As one Islamicscholar stated it, the Qur'an "is an expression of Divine Will. If you wantto compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it withChrist Himself. Christ was the expression of the Divine among men, therevelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Qur'an is." 19 OrthodoxMuslims believe the Qur'an is eternal and uncreated, yet it is not thesame as God but is an expression of God's mind as imperishable as Godhimself. Surely, there is here a plurality within unity, something that isother than God but is nonetheless one with God. Indeed, the very factthat Muslim scholars see an analogy with the Christian doctrine of thedeity of Christ reveals the value of this illustration. For Muslims hold thatthere are two eternal and uncreated things but only one God. And Chris-tians hold to three uncreated and eternal persons but only one God.

Further, some have pointed to the fact that Muhammad was simulta-neously a prophet, a husband, and a leader. Why then should a Muslimreject the idea of a plurality of functions (persons) in God. Within theIslamic system is the very proof that plurality within unity, as it relates toGod, is not unintelligible. By the same token, then, there is no reasonMuslims should reject the doctrine of the Trinity as nonsensical.

SUMMARY

At the heart of the difference between Islam and Christianity standsthe Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Muslims protest that it is neitherbiblical nor intelligible. Yet we have seen that in order to maintain the

19. Yusuf K. Ibish in an article entitled, The Muslim lives by the Qur'an," cited byWaddy, 14.


former they have twisted scriptural texts out of context. And to hold thelatter, to he consistent, they must reject not only clear logical distinctionsbut their own view of the relation of the Qur'an to God. In brief, there isno good reason to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, we pro-vided evidence (in Chapter 11) that Christ is indeed the Son of God. Thus,Christian trinitarianism, with all its richness of interpersonal relationswithin the Godhead and with God's creatures, is to be preferred over abarren and rigid Muslim monotheism.

13A DEFENSE OF SALVATION

BY THE CROSS

As we have already seen (in Chapter 6), Islamic theology is violentlyopposed to salvation by grace through faith, based on the crucified andrisen Christ. There are many reasons Muslims reject the orthodox Chris-tian view of salvation, but several stand out.

First, it implies that humans are inherently sinful and in need of salva-tion, but Islam flatly rejects the Christian doctrine of depravity. Second,it rejects the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God who, by his deathas the God-man, brought reconciliation between humankind and God.Third, the idea of God allowing a prophet of his to suffer an ignominiousdeath like crucifixion is contrary to the Islamic concept of God's provi-dential care for his special servants.

Cragg writes,

The immediate impression on the general reader from what the Qur'an hasto tell him about Jesus is that of its brevity. . . . It is further surprising thatwithin the limits of some ninety verses in all no less than sixty-four belongto the extended, and partly duplicate, nativity stories.... This leaves a baretwenty-six or so verses to present the rest and some reiteration herereduces the total still further. It has often been observed that the New Tes-tament Gospels are really passion narratives with extended introduction. Itcould well be said that the Jesus cycle in the Qur'an is nativity narrativeswith attenuated sequel.

1. Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, 25-26.

278

A Defense of Salvation by the Cross 279

Cragg adds that "Jesus had a specific—some would say a limited—mission to Jewry is stressed in the Qur'an. Only Muhammad as the 'sealof the prophets' belongs to all times and places." Thus, "the 'universality'which Christianity is alleged to have 'read into' Jesus, violating this moreexplicitly Jewish vocation, is seen as part of that de-Semiticisation ofJesus' Gospel, which is attributed to the early Gentile Church." 2

Many Western scholars find Muhammad's reason for dismissing theChristian doctrine of salvation through the cross in the fact the majorprophets in history have always been victorious against their enemies. Ifthe Christ of God were killed on the cross by his adversaries, then whatwould have become of the constant Qur'anic theme that those who didnot obey God's prophet did not triumph? Was not the admission of thecross an acknowledgment that the unrighteous had ultimately tri-umphed over the righteous?3

We will discuss the Islamic understanding of salvation by the sacrifi-cial death and resurrection of Christ. Then we will evaluate their view,offering criticisms from a Christian perspective.

MUSLIM MISUNDERSTANDINGSOF CHRISTIAN SALVATION

While Muslims believe, as Christians do, in the virgin birth, as well asthe death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Christ, it is easyto overstate these misleading similarities. At the very heart of Christianity(1 Cor. 15:1-6) is the belief that Jesus died on the cross for humankind'ssins and rose again three days later. But Islam categorically rejects thisteaching. Most Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross, and nonebelieve he paid the penalty for the sins of the world there. Further, whileIslam teaches the resurrection of Christ, it is usually only viewed as partof the general resurrection on the last day. Thus while they hold thatJesus ascended into heaven after his time on earth, most do not believethat he was resurrected before his ascension. And none believe he wasresurrected three days after his crucifixion. In fact, almost no Muslimscholars believe that Christ was crucified at all and those that do havebeen condemned as heretical.

Further, for Muslims, Christ's second coming is not, as Christiansbelieve, to set up a kingdom on earth but to tell Christians to followMuhammad. According to one Muslim tradition, "Jesus, son of Mary, willdescend to the earth, will marry, have children, and live 45 years, afterwhich he will die and be buried along with me [Mohammad] in my grave.

2. Ibid., 27.3. Bell, 154.


Then Jesus, son of Mary, and I shall arise from the grave between AbuBakr and Umar."4

Muslim Scholar Shaikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani declared that "in the greatdebate between Christians and Muslims . . . there are areas of fundamen-tal principles where no amount of logical discourse can bring the twosides nearer to each other and where therefore the existence of animpasse must be recognized." Thus "issues like the Trinity, the Divinityof Christ and the Crucifixion, so central to Christian beliefs, have no placein the Islamic faith, having been categorically refuted by the Quran." 5

Muslims are so vehemently opposed to belief in the crucifixion of Christthat some label it demonic. Ibn Taymiyya declared that "the first goal ofthe demon is to lead people astray by delivering to them false informa-tion, as did the one who informed the apostles that he was Christ whowas crucified."6

MUSLIM MISUNDERSTANDINGABOUT CHRIST 'S DEATH

Muslim misunderstanding of the crucifixion is represented in thestatement of Ibn Taymiyya, that "not a single one of the Christians was awitness with them [the Jews]. Rather the apostles kept a distance throughfear, and not one of them witnessed the crucifixion." 7 This, of course, isboth false and misleading. It is false because the Gospel record states thatthe apostle John was standing right there by the cross during the crucifix-ion (John 19:26; cf. 20:20-25). And Peter may have been there at a dis-tance (see Mark 14:54). Furthermore, in addition there were other follow-ers of Christ at the cross, including Mary the mother of Jesus (John 20:25-26) and other women (Luke 23:27; John 19:25). It is misleading because iti mplies that one cannot be sure that Jesus died on the cross unless hisapostles were there. The Roman soldiers charged under the penalty ofdeath to faithfully execute their duty were sufficient witnesses to thedeath of Christ. They were professional executioners and were accus-tomed to putting people to death. Furthermore, there were other peoplepresent, including the two thieves on adjacent crosses (Matt. 27:38), thecrowd (Matt. 27:39) called "a great multitude" (Luke 23:27), and the Jew-

4. A. R. L Doi, The Status of Prophet Jesus in Islam-II," in Muslim World League Journal(June 1982), 23. According to the Islamic tradition (sound hadith) Muhammad said, "It isi mpending that the son of Mary will descend among you as a just judge, a righteous imam;he will break the cross, kill the pig, and impose the jizya la special tax on unbelievers paidto Muslim rulers for their protection]." Ibn Taymiyya , 306.

5. Ahmed Zaki Yamani, in Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, ix–x.6. Ibn Taymiyya, 110.7. Ibid., 305.


ish leaders (Matt. 27:41), who because of their hatred of him had everymotivation to assure that Jesus was put to death there. Even if none ofJesus' followers were there—and several were—the many other wit-nesses of the crucifixion would have been more than enough to establishthe fact of his death.

The evidence that Jesus actually died physically on the cross is over-whelming. For one, the Old Testament predicted it (Isa. 53:5-10; Ps.22:16; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 12:10), and Jesus fulfilled the Old Testamentprophecies about the Messiah (Matt. 4:14; 5:17-18; 8:17; John 4:25-26;5:39). Furthermore, Jesus announced it in advance over and over again(Matt. 12:40; 17:22-23; 20:18; Mark 10:45; John 2:19-20; John 10:10-11).Also, all the predictions of his resurrection (Ps. 16:10; Isa. 26:19; Dan.12:2; John 2:19-21; Matt. 12:40; 17:22-23) are based on the fact that hewould die. Only a dead body can be resurrected. What is more, the natureand extent of Jesus' injuries indicate that he must have died, the very pro-cess of crucifixion assuring his death. Likewise, the piercing of Jesus' sidewith the spear, from which came "blood and water" (John 19:34), is med-ical proof that he had physically died. Also, Jesus declared his own deathat its very moment, saying, "Father, into Your hands I commend Myspirit" (Luke 23:46; cf. John 19:30). And Jesus' death cry was heard bythose who stood by (John 19:47-49). Furthermore, the Roman soldiers,accustomed to crucifixion and death, pronounced Jesus dead (John19:33). On top of all this, Pilate double-checked to make sure Jesus wasdead before he gave the corpse to Joseph to be buried (Mark 15:44-45). Inaddition, Jesus was wrapped in about seventy-five pounds of cloth andspices and placed in a sealed tomb for three days (John 19:39-40; Matt.27:60). If he was not dead by then, which he clearly was, he would havedied from lack of food, water, and medical treatment. Finally, medicalauthorities who have carefully examined the evidence have concludedthat he actually died on the cross, insisting that "the weight of historicaland medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound tohis side was inflicted.... Accordingly, interpretations based on theassumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds withmodern medical knowledge."8

Muslim ambiguity about the death of Christ has led to a rather confus-ing state of affairs that can be clarified as follows:

1) All Muslims agree that Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins.

8. See the article on Christ's death in the Journal of the American Medical Association( March 21, 1986), 1463.


2) Almost all Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross at allbut that someone else was crucified in his place, such as Judas (seeAppenix 2) or Simon who carried Jesus' cross.

3) Almost all Muslims hold that Jesus did not die at all before heascended into heaven but that he will die after his second comingand will be raised later with others in the general resurrection ofthe last days.

Mufassir summarized the heart of the Islamic view well when he said,"Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of hisenemies to put him to death on the cross, but God saved him from theirplot."9 Several passages in the Qur'an are the basis for Muslim agreementthat Jesus was not crucified on the cross for our sins; 4:157-58 is a keytext. At face value it seems to say that Jesus did not die at all. It certainlydenies that he died by crucifixion. It reads:

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apos-tle of God";—But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was madeto appear to them, And those who differ therein are full of doubts, With no(certain) knowledge, But only conjecture to follow, for of a surety theykilled him not:—Nay, God raised him up Unto Himself; and God Is exaltedin power, wise.

The reason for Islamic disbelief in the crucifixion of Jesus centers ontwo theological concepts: sovereignty and depravity. More precisely, it isbased on the unique Islamic concept of sovereignty of God and theirrejection of the Christian belief in the depravity of man.

The Muslim view of God's sovereignty as the reason for rejection of thecrucifixion of Christ is reflected in the following text:

Say, Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy theMessiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is theSovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. Hecreateth what He will: And Allah is Able to do all things (5:17).

A sovereign God has control over all things. And he would not allow hisservant to suffer such an ignominious death at the hands of his enemiesas a crucifixion. Rather, a sovereign God, such as Allah, would deliver hisservant from his enemies. Abdalati, in a typical Muslim fashion, asks, "Isit consistent with God's Mercy and Wisdom to believe that Jesus washumiliated and murdered the way he is said to have been?" 10 As the

9. Mufassir, 5.10. Abdalati, 160.


Qur'an states, "When Allah said: 0 Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee andcausing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who dis-believe and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieveuntil the Day of Resurrection " (3:55).

This argument, however, is highly debatable for many reasons. Forone thing, this is a humanly devised idea ofwhat God would or would notdo. But it is utterly presumptuous for mortal man to tell a sovereign God(as Muslims believe him to be) how he should or should not act. As theprophet Isaiah informs us, God said, "My thoughts are not your thoughts,Nor are your ways My ways" (Isa. 55:8). Indeed, even Muslims believethat God is omnipotent and can do anything he pleases to do (Sura 30:5).

Further, the very concept of sovereignty held by Muslims is that Godcan do anything. Why then could God have not permitted Jesus to be cru-cified, if he had wished?

For another thing, the prophet Isaiah instructs us that God did indeedapprove of the ignominious death of his Servant, declaring: "He has noform of comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that weshould desire Him. He is despised, and rejected by men, A Man of sor-rows and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from Him;... Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted." "But,"he continues, "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruisedfor our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, And byHis stripes we are healed " (Isa. 53:2-5). So Jesus' crucifixion was not onlyapproved by God, it was predicted (cf. Zech. 12:10; Ps. 22:16). It should heno surprise to a reader of the New Testament that the message of the cru-cifixion is offensive to unbelievers. Indeed, Paul even referred to the"offense of the cross" but added that "it pleased God through the foolish-ness of the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). For"the foolishness of God is wiser than men" (v. 25).

Indeed, even the Qur'an gives a beautiful example of a substitutionaryatonement in Abraham's sacrifice of his son on Mount Moriah:

He said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice.... "So whenthey had both Submitted their wills (to God), And he laid him Prostrate onhis forehead (For sacrifice), We [God] called out to him, "0 Abraham! ... AndWe ransomed him With a momentous sacrifice " (37:102-7, emphasis ours).

The use of the words "sacrifice" and "ransom" are precisely what Chris-tians mean by Christ's death on the cross. In fact, Jesus used such wordsof his own death (Mark 10:45). So the sacrificial death of Christ is not un-Qur 'anic.

Then, too, the whole idea of God allowing insulting experiences tohappen to his servant is not un-Muslim. Muhammad's biographer,


Haykal, tells of insulting experiences suffered by Muhammad. He notes,for example, that "the tribe of Thagif , however, not only repudiatedMuhammad's call but sent their servants to insult him and throw him outof their city. He ran away from them and took shelter near a wall... .There he sat under a vine pondering his defeat with the sight of the sonsof Rabi'ah." 11

What is more, even if Muslims assume that God will deliver his proph-ets from their enemies, it is wrong to conclude that he did not deliverChrist from his enemies. Indeed, this is precisely what the resurrection is.For "God raised [Christ] up, having loosed the pains of death, because itwas not possible that He should be held by it" (Acts 2:24). According tothe Scriptures, God raised Christ up because, as he said: "You are My son,Today I have begotten You [from the dead] " (Acts 13:33). Further, theScriptures declare that God kept his promise to his people (in Ps. 16:10)and saw to it that "His [Christ's] soul was not left in Hades, nor did Hisflesh see corruption" (Acts 2:31). Thus, "He was exalted to the right handof God" (v. 33). Indeed, it was by Christ's death and resurrection that"death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. 15:54), and we can say, "0Death, where is your sting? 0 Hades, where is your victory?" (1 Cor.15:55).

Finally, the death and resurrection of Christ did, contrary to Islamicteaching, manifest God's mercy. Indeed, without it there would havebeen no mercy for a sinful world. Paul wrote: "For when we were stillwithout strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." Thus "Goddemonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners,Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:6, 8). He adds elsewhere that it is "not byworks of righteousness which we have done, but according to His [God's]mercy He saved us " (Titus 3:5). As Jesus himself said, " Greater love has noone than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends" (John 15:13). Yethe died for us when "we were [His] enemies" (Rom. 5:10).

The other Muslim reason given for rejecting the crucifixion is the con-comitant doctrine of depravity. Islamic scholars are quick to point outthe connection between the Christian claim that Jesus died on the crossfor our sins and the doctrine of depravity. Doi notes that "connected withthe Christian belief in crucifixion of Isa [Jesus] is the irreconcilable con-cept of original sin." 12 He adds categorically that "Islam does not believein the doctrine of the original sin (see Chapter 2). It is not Adam's sin thata child inherits and manifests at birth. Every child is born sinless and thesins of the fathers are not visited upon the children." Further, "Islamdenies emphatically the concept of original sin and hereditary depravity.

11. Haykal, 137.12. See Doi, 23.


Every child is born pure and true; every departure in after-life from thepath of truth and rectitude is due to imperfect education." Citing theprophet Muhammad, Doi affirms that "Every child is born in a religiousmold; it is his parents who make him afterward a Jew, a Christian, or aSabaean.... In other words, good and evil is not created in man at birth.Infants have no positive moral character." Rather, "every human being... has two inclinations—one prompting him to do good and impellinghim thereto, and the other prompting him to do evil and thereto impel-ling him; but the assistance of God is nigh. "13

But here again the rejection of total depravity is without foundationfor many reasons. Even Muslims have to acknowledge that humanbeings are sinful. Otherwise, why do they need God's mercy? Indeed,why do they believe that so many (including all Christians) have com-mitted the greatest of all sins, attributing partners to God (4:116)? Fur-ther, why did God need to send prophets to warn them of their sin, ifthey are not constant sinners? Also, why are the unbelievers sent to hellto stiffer? This seems to imply great sinfulness to deserve such a severepenalty as suffering in hell. Finally, it is both unrealistic and un-Qur'anic to deny the inherent sinfulness of humankind. Indeed, "someMuslim theologians have held to a doctrine of Hereditary Sin. . . . Also,there is a famous tradition that the Prophet of Islam said, 'No child isborn but the devil hath touched it, except Mary and her son Jesus."'

14

Further, "Other passages refer to humankind as sinful (orunjust—zulum—14:34/37 ; 33:72), foolish (33:72), ungrateful (14:34/37), weak(4:28/32), despairing or boastful (11:9/12-10/13), quarrel-some (16:4),and rebellious (96:6). "15 The Qur'an even declares that "if God were topunish Men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), Asingle living creature" (16:61). Ayatollah Khomeini even went so far as tosay "that man's calamity is his carnal desires, and this exists in every-body, and is rooted in the nature of man." 16 In view of these admissionsthere is no reason to reject the Christian doctrine of the depravity ofhumankind.

A DEFENSE OF THE CHRISTIAN VIEWOF SALVATION

We will divide our comments into two broad categories. First, we willoffer a response to the Islamic misunderstanding of salvation by the cru-

13. Ibid., 20.14. Nazir-Ali, 165.15. For an excellent discussion on this subject see Woodberry, 155.16. From an article in an Iranian newspaper as cited by Woodberry, 159.


cifixion/death and resurrection of Christ. Then, we will give a rationalefor the Christian position on salvation, in hope of rendering the credibleintelligible to the Muslim mind.

Totally apart from the nature of the Islamic rejection of humandepravity, it is not a sufficient basis for rejecting a historical fact such asthe crucifixion of Christ. The factual evidence for Christ's death on thecross "under Pontius Pilate" is more than ample (see discussion above),and it stands on its own apart from any theological beliefs.

INADEQUATE BASIS FOR REJECTING THE DEATH OF CHRIST

Indeed, even granting what Muslims admit about Christ's crucifixionand death, there is no reason to reject the biblical account. For example,Muslims teach that:

1) Jesus would die (3:55; cf. 19:33).17

2) Jesus would one day rise from the dead (19:33). 18

3) Jesus' disciples who witnessed the event believed that it was Jesus,not someone else in his place, who was crucified on the cross.

4) The Roman soldiers and the Jews believed that it was Jesus of Naz-areth whom they had crucified.

5) Jesus could and did perform miracles, including raising peoplefrom the dead.

If 1) and 2) are accepted by Muslims, then there is no reason they shouldreject the fact that Jesus died on the Cross and raised himself from thedead.

I mplausible Muslim speculation, such as Judas or Simon died in Jesus'place or that he only swooned on the cross, does not help their alreadyflimsy hypothesis (see Appendix 2). Al-Tabari, well-known Muslim histo-rian and commentator on the Qur'an, reports that Wahab B. Munabih,who Hived around A.D. 700 propagated the lore that someone was substi-tuted for Jesus on the Cross. His version is reported as follows:

They brought him the gibbet on which they intended to crucify him, butGod raised him up to Himself and a simulacrum was crucified in his place.He remained there for seven hours, and then his mother and anotherwoman whom He had cured of madness came to weep for him. But Jesus

17. However, most Muslims believe that Jesus did not die while on earth the first timebut will only die after he returns to earth at his second coming.

18. Muslims believe that Jesus will only rise from the dead in the general resurrectionafter he returns to earth and dies.


came to them and said, "God has raised me up to Himself, and this is amere simulacrum." 19

Another example of the growth of this legendary tradition of Islam isfound in the view of Thalabi , who lived some three hundred years afterMunabih. "The shape of Jesus was put on Judas who has pointed him out,and they crucified him instead, supposing that he was Jesus. After threehours God took Jesus to Himself and raised him up to heaven." 20

More recently, Doi offers the hypothesis that when the Roman soldierscame with Judas to arrest Jesus "the two Jews got mixed up in the dark,and the soldiers mistakenly arrested Judas instead of Jesus. Jesus wasthus saved and raised up." 21 In support of this view Muslims often citethe spurious Gospel of Barnabas (see Appendix 3).

Substitution legends are not unique to Islam. Some early opponents ofChristianity offered similar speculations. According to the second-cen-tury church father Frenacus, Basilides the gnostic taught that "at the Cru-cifixion He [Jesus] changed form with Simon of Cyrene who had carriedthe cross. The Jews mistaking Simon for Jesus nailed him to the cross.Jesus stood by deriding their error before ascending to heaven." 22 In thethird century A.D. Mani of Persia taught that the son of the widow of Nainwhom Jesus raised from the dead was put to death in his place. Accordingto another Manichaean tradition, the devil, who was trying to crucifyJesus, himself fell victim to the crucifixion. In the tenth century A.D. Pho-tius wrote about the apocryphal book, The Travels of Paul, in which it wassaid that another was crucified in Jesus' place.

23

INADEQUATE BASIS FOR MUSLIM SUBSTITUTION LEGENDS

There are many reasons why the substitution legends are not histori-cally credible. First, they are contrary to the extant record of eyewitnesstestimony that it was "Jesus of Nazareth" who was crucified (Matt. 27;Mark 14; Luke 23; John 19).

Second, these substitution legends are contrary to the earliest extra-biblical Jewish, Roman, and Samaritan testimony about the death ofChrist.24 Tacitus's Annals speak of "Christ, who was executed under Pon-

19. Abdul-Haqq, 135-36. Taken from F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outsidethe New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 178.

20. Ibid., 179.21. Doi, 21.22. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 156f. Cited by Haqq, 136.23. Ibid., 136.24. Gary Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,

1984), 87-118.


tius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. "25 In the second century Justin Martyrreferred to the "Acts of Pontius Pilate" under whom "nails were fixed inJesus' hands and feet on the cross; and after he was crucified, his execu-tioners cast lots for his garments. "26 Josephus, the first-century Jewishhistorian, wrote that "there was a wise man who was called Jesus....Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. "27 The Jewish Talmud,speaking of Jesus' "execution," declares that "on the eve of PassoverYeshua [Jesus] was hanged. "28 The earliest reference to Christ outside theNew Testament is in Thallus, a Palestinian historian writing about A.D . 52,who spoke of the "darkness which accompanied the crucifixion ofChrist."29 There is also a Syriac manuscript in the British Museum (fromsome time after A.D. 73) by Mara bar Serapion that asks: "What advantagedid the Jews gain from executing their king? It was just after that theirkingdom was abolished."30 In spite of the fact that all of these writerswere opponents of Christianity, they are in agreement that Jesus of Naz-areth was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Third, there is not a shred of first-century testimony to the contrary byfriend or foe of Christianity. The earliest substitution legends are notfrom the first century, and were heavily influenced by Gnosticism (A.D.150f.). And none of them is based on any documented evidence of eye-witnesses or contemporaries of the events.

Fourth, these legends are implausible, since they demand total igno-rance on the part of those closest to Jesus, his disciples, his own motherwho was present, and on the part of the Romans who crucified him. Theysuppose that Jesus told his mother and another woman that someonewho looked like him was crucified and that they never informed the dis-ciples nor corrected them as they promptly went out to preach under thethreat of death that Jesus had died and risen from the dead!

Finally, the Muslim denial of Christ's death by crucifixion is based ona theological misunderstanding. Abdalati, for example, lists the follow-ing among his reasons for rejecting the crucifixion of Christ: "Is it just onGod's part, or anybody's part for that matter, to make someone repent

25.Tacitus, Annals, 15.44. Cited by Bruce, 22.26.Justin, First Apology, 35, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 175.27.Josephus, Antiquities, 18:3, from the Arabic text which is more likely the original,

since Josephus merely claims that Jesus' disciples "reported that He had appeared to themthree days after his crucifixion." This is something more likely for a non-Christian Jewishhistorian to say than Whiston's version that declares: "he (Jesus] appeared to them aliveagain the third day" See Josephus, Josephus: Complete Works, 379.

28.Michael L. Rodkinson, The Babylonian Talmud, "Sanhedrin," 43a (Talmud Society,1918).

29.Sec Bruce, 30.30. Ibid., 31.


for the sins or wrongs of others, the sins to which the repenter is noparty?

"31

This, of course, is based on a complete misunderstanding of whatChristians believe about the atonement of Christ. Nowhere in the Bibledoes it say that Christ repented for our sins. It simply says that he "diedfor our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Judicially, he was "made to be sin for us" (2 Cor.5:21). But at no time did he confess anyone's sins. He taught his disciplesto pray, "Our Father ... forgive us our sins" (Matt. 6:12). However, Jesusnever confessed any sin for himself or anyone else. This is a total misun-derstanding of the concept of substitutionary atonement. What the Bibleteaches is that Jesus took our place. He paid the penalty of death for us.He took our sentence so that we could go free (Mark 10:45; Rom. 4:25;1 Pet. 2:22; 3:18). This concept of life for life is not foreign to Islam. It is thesame principle behind their belief in capital punishment; when a mur-derer takes another's life, he must forfeit his own as a penalty.

Furthermore, Islam teaches that God is just (see Chapter 1). But abso-lute justice must be satisfied. God cannot simply overlook sin. A penaltymust be paid for it, either by the persons themselves or by someone elsefor them, which enables them to go to heaven. In a letter to a friendexplaining why he became a Christian, Daud Rahbar "argues that theQur'anic doctrine of God's justice demands that such a God be himselfinvolved in suffering and be seen as involved in suffering. Only then canhe be a just judge of suffering humanity." For "a God that is preservedfrom suffering will be an arbitrary and capricious judge." 32 In brief, Islamhas several doctrines, God's justice and God's forgiveness, heaven andhell, which make no real sense apart from subtitutionary atonement.

Another misconception behind the Islamic rejection of the crucifixionis that a merciful God can forgive sin without justly condemning it. Thisis reflected in Abdalati's question, "Was God the Most Merciful, the MostForgiving and the Most High unable to forgive men's sins except byinflicting this cruel and most humiliating alleged crucifixion on one whowas not only innocent but also dedicated to His service and cause in amost remarkable way?"33

Actually there are two basic mistakes here. It is implied that what Jesusdid was not voluntary but inflicted. In actual fact the Gospels declare thatJesus gave his life voluntarily and freely. Jesus said, "I lay down My lifethat I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down Myself.I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again" (John

31. See Abdalati, 160.32. See Nazir-Ali, 28.33. See Abdalati, 162.


10:17-18). Indeed, when Jesus died the Bible says "He [freely] gave up Hisspirit" (John 19:30).

Further, Muslims seem not to appreciate the basis on which the justand holy God they confess can forgive sins. While God is sovereign, he isnot arbitrary about right and wrong.

34Indeed, Muslims, like Christians,

believe that God will punish forever those who do not repent of their sins(14:17; 25:11-14). But if God 's holy justice demands that those who donot accept him be eternally punished for their sins, then it would seem tofollow that God cannot just arbitrarily forgive anyone for anything with-out there being a just basis for this forgiveness. However, in Muslim the-ology—with its rejection of the cross—there is forgiveness but no realbasis for this forgiveness. For Muslims reject Christ's sacrificial paymentfor sin to a just God by which he can then justly justify the unjust whoaccept Christ's payment on their behalf (cf. Rom. 3:21-26). After all, atruly just God cannot simply close his eyes to sin; he cannot overlook evil.So unless someone capable of paying the debt of sin owed to God does so,God is obligated to express his wrath, not his mercy, upon them. Lackingthe crucifixion, the Muslim system has no way to explain how Allah canbe merciful when he is also just 35

The theological blindspot in the Muslim system created by a rejectionof Christ's atoning sacrifice leads to other unfounded statements, such asAbdalati's rhetorical question: "Does the [Christian] belief of crucifixionand blood sacrifice appear in any religion apart from pagan creeds or theearly Greeks, Romans, Indians, Persians, and the like?" 36 The answer is aclear "Yes." It is the very heart of historic Judaism, as even a casualacquaintance with the Old Testament reveals. Moses told Israel: "Thelifeof the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar tomake atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonementfor the soul" (Lev. 17:11). This is why the children of Israel had to sacrificethe Passover lamb, commemorating their deliverance from bondage(Exod. 12:1f.). This is why the New Testament speaks of Christ as "theLamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). And theapostle Paul called "Christ, our passover, [who] was sacrificed for us"(1 Cor. 5:7). The writer of Hebrews adds, "and without the shedding ofblood there is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).

Of course, Muslim scholars argue that the original Old Testament wasdistorted too. However, like the New Testament, the ancient Dead Seamanuscripts of the Old Testament reveal that the Old Testament today is

34. See comments on Islamic voluntarism in Chapter 7.35. For a classical discussion of this issue in Christian theology, see St. Anselm, Why

God Became Man (Cur Deus Homo).36. See Abdalati, 160.


substantially the same as the one in the time of Christ, over six hundredyears before Muhammad. 37 Therefore, since the Qur'an urges the Jews inMuhammad's day to accept God's revelation in the Law (10:94), andsince the Jewish Old Testament is substantially the same today as it wasin Muhammad's day, then Muslims should accept that blood sacrificesfor sins were commanded by God.

Since most Muslims reject the fact of Christ's crucifixion and death onthe cross they understandably have great difficulty explaining the resur-rection, appearances, and ascension of Christ. Since they believe Christwas merely a human being, they accept the fact of Christ's mortality.Believing in Jesus' eventual resurrection with all other humans in thegeneral resurrection but rejecting his death on the cross, they are forcedto find some other place for Christ's death. This dilemma has given riseto ingenious speculation. Many Muslim scholars believe that Jesus Christwas taken up to heaven alive without experiencing death. They supposethat his death will happen sometime when he returns to the earth beforethe last day. This they take from a literal understanding of 4:157-58 thatsays, "They killed him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was made toappear to them. . . . Nay, God raised him up to Himself." Others hypoth-esize that Jesus died a natural death at some unknown time after the cru-cifixion and remained dead for three hours, or according to another tra-dition, seven hours—after which he was resurrected and taken toheaven. 38 But, as we have seen, there is absolutely no historical testi-mony to support such speculation. Further, why an ascension without aresurrection? An ascension is a miraculous acceptance of Christ by Godwhich implies a resurrection first.

A few Islamic writers, like Ahmad Khan of India, believe that Jesus wascrucified, but did not die on the cross. Rather, he merely swooned andwas taken down after three hours 3 9 Other Muslims in north India addedthe legend that Jesus visited Tibet. Abdul-Haqq notes that GhulamAhmad "home brew[ed] a theory that Jesus Christ took His journey toKasmir . . . after His crucifixion. To further support his theory he conve-niently found a grave in Sirinagar, Kashmir, which he declared to be thegrave of Jesus." However, the Ahmadiyyas sect's "speculations have beencondemned as heretical by the Muslim orthodoxy. "40

Abdalati notes that "whether he [Jesus] was raised alive in soul andbody or in soul only after he died a natural death had not much bearingon the Islamic belief." Why? Because "it is no Article of Faith, becausewhat is important and binding to a Muslim is what God reveals; and God

37. Geisler and Nix, Chapter 21.38. See Abdul-Haqq, 131.39. Sec Abdul-Haqq, 132.40. Ibid., 133.


revealed that Jesus was not crucified but was raised to Him."41 He cites insupport 4:157, which says, "and those who differ Therein are full ofdoubts, With no (certain) knowledge, But only conjecture to follow, Forof a surety They killed him not:—Nay, God raised him up unto Himself;and God Is Exalted in Power, Wise. "

Most Muslims, however, believe that Jesus will be physically resur-rected from the dead in the general resurrection of the last day. Anythingelse appears to be intramural speculation not essential to the Muslimfaith. Therefore, rejecting Jesus' death by crucifixion leads to a rejectionof his resurrection three days later and leaves the enigma of the ascen-sion before any death or resurrection.

In place of the historic resurrection three days after Jesus' death bycrucifixion, most Muslims feel obliged to place the resurrection of Jesusin the general resurrection of all humans in the last days. In support theyappeal to 19:33, in which Jesus is alleged to say, "Peace is on me The dayI was horn, and The day that 1 die, And the day that I Shall be raised up tolife (again)!" This they note is the same phrase used of John the Baptist in19:15. In another passage God is presented as saying, "0 Jesus! Lo! I amgathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me" (3:55).

On the surface it would seem that salvation by grace through faith inthe death and resurrection of Christ is totally incomprehensible to theMuslim mind. This, we believe, is not the case. While the unbeliever doesnot receive (Greek dekomai) God's truth (1 Cor. 2:14), nevertheless, hecan perceive it. Indeed, according to Romans 1:18-20, unbelievers are"without excuse" for not perceiving God's revelation in nature. And thevery fact that unbelievers are called upon to believe the gospel impliesthat they can understand it (cf. Acts 16:31; 17:30-31). Jesus rebukedunbelievers for not understanding what he was talking about, declaring,"If you were blind, you would have no sin: but now you say, 'We see.'Therefore your sin remains" (John 9:41).

There is nothing contradictory or incredible about salvation by substi-tution. The Muslim mind should not have any more difficulty with thisconcept than any other mind. This concept is in accord with a virtuallyuniversal human practice. It is considered commendable for people todie in defense of the innocent. Warriors are hailed for dying for theirtribe. Soliders are honored for dying for their country. Parents are calledcompassionate when they die for their children. This is precisely whatJesus did. As the apostle Paul put it, "scarcely for a righteous man will onedie; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But .. .while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:7—8).

41. See Abdalati, 159.


Further, even in the Islamic understanding sacrificial death occurred.The Muslim practice of id ghorban (feat of sacrifice) features the sacrificeof a sheep in memory of Abraham's sacrifice of his son. For some this isassociated with the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, Muslim soldierswho sacrificed their lives for the cause of Islam were awarded Paradise(3:157-58; 22:58-59). If Allah could call upon his servants to die for Islam,why think it so strange that God could call upon his Son to die for salva-tion of Muslims, indeed of the world?

CONCLUSIONMuslim confusion about the resurrection of Christ stems from their

rejection of his death by crucifixion, which we have already discussed.Much of the Islamic rejection of Christ is based on a misunderstanding ofthe facts about him. Since they believe in the divine inspiration of theoriginal Old and New Testaments, Jesus' virgin birth, sinless life, divinelyauthoritative teaching, death, eventual resurrection, ascension, and sec-ond coming, it is a tragedy that the rejection of his claims to be the Son ofGod and Savior of the world are lost in the midst of all they do accept. 42

All of this, of course, is based on their unfortunate rejection of theauthenticity of the Bible. Perhaps a better understanding of the factualbasis for the authenticity of the Bible (see Chapter 10) could pave the wayfor their taking more seriously the Qur'an when it urges doubters to go tothe Scriptures:

If thou wert in doubt As to what We have revealed Unto thee, then ask thoseWho have been reading The Book [the Bible' from before thee: The Truthhath indeed come To thee from thy Lord: So be in no wise Of those in doubt(10:94).

42. With a penetrating insight, Stanton comments, "It remains one of the outstandinganomalies of history that the religious genius of Arabia, who staked the truth of his messageon the witness of previous Scriptures, should have utterly neglected to verify their contentsand should have sucessfully inspired his followers through the ages to a like neglect" (Stan-ton, 42).

Appendix 1

MUSLIM SECTS AND MOVEMENTS

Two MAJOR SECTS: SUNNI AND SHI ' ITE

Islam is divided into two basic sects, Sunni and Shiite. The Sunnis areby far and away the largest group, comprising about 80 percent of allMuslims. These sects arose originally over the political dispute as to whoshould be the first Caliph or successor to Muhammad. Having failed toappoint one before he died, the Sunnis contended that Muhammad'ssuccessor should be elected. The Shi'ites (the party of Ali), on the otherhand, insisted that he should come from the bloodline of Muhammad.This would have meant that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law,was the only legitimate successor to the Prophet. Therefore, the Shi'itesreject the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs of Islam and view them aspeople who deliberately deprived Ali of his divine rights.

Many of the factors involved in the historical development of Shi'iteIslam have been political in nature. As Fazlur Rahman points out, "Thus,we see that Shi'ism became, in the early history of Islam, a cover for dif-ferent forces of social and political discontent. The southern Arabs usedit as a facade to assert their pride and independence against the Arabs ofthe North. In the Iraqi mixed population, it claimed the services of thediscontented Persians and contributed to the rise . . . of an extreme Per-sian cultural, nationalistic movement." 1

The central motif of Shi'ite thought is derived from the violent andb]oody martyrdom of Husayn, Ali's son and Muhammad's grandson, atthe battle of Karbala by the troops of the corrupt Islamic government.

I. Rahman, Islam, I71.

295

296 Appendix 1

Rippin and Knappert explain the significance of Husayn's martyrdom inIslamic culture:

The tales of the battles and Husayn's eventual death are told throughoutthe Shi'ite world and cannot fail to produce tears in those who listen andparticipate.... Every year, millions of faithful followers in Iraq, Iran, Paki-stan, India, and East Africa commemorate the sad events with rituals ofmourning. A replica of the mausoleum at Karbala is carried around and themourners sing hymns and recite prayers during the procession and thenight-long mosque service that follows it. Scenes of self-flagellation arecommon occurrences during the procession.

The 'sacrifice' of Husayn is compared to Abraham's readiness to sacri-fice his son in obedience to God and that sacrifice is celebrated on the sameday of Ashura with the slaughter of a sheep. This underlies the parallelismwith the passion of Jesus in Christianity who is also compared to the lambslaughtered by Abraham. 2

In addition to the above political differences, there are also fundamen-tal theological differences between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Based onthe creed of Hasan ibn Yusuf (d. A.D. 1326), an eminent Shi'ite theologian,Williams explains some of the theological differences in the followingsummary account:

Theologically, they ][Shi'ites] are Mu'tazili rationalists, believing that theQur'an is created, and that since God is essentially good, He cannot do evil.He has created man with free will.... It follows that He would not leaveman without guidance; thus the hooks of the prophets have been sentdown. Even so, as the sects of Islam attest, confusion arises, so it followsthat God has given man in addition to the Prophet an infallible guide in reli-gious matters. This guide is the Imam . It is also clear then that the selectionof the Imams is a matter which could not be left to human error; they wereDivinely appointed from birth. The true Imams are the direct line of Alithrough al-Husayn.... [Shi'ites] believe in the doctrines of occultation(ghayba) and return (raja). The twelfth of the line of Imams did not die, ashis enemies assert, but like the Qur'anic Jesus, he was taken by God fromhuman sight, and is in occultation. He will return to earth as the Mahdi , theawaited messianic figure who . . . will bring the triumph of religion and her-ald the last judgment. 3

2. Rippin and Knappert, Textual Sources for the Study of Islam, 21-22.3. Williams, 224-25. For a brief but scholarly treatment of various aspects of Shi'ite Is-

lam, see Goldziher, 167. For two recent sympathetic works on Shi'ite Islam, written byShi'ite scholars, see Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shi'ite Islam: The History and Doc-trines of Twelver Shi'ism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); and Abdulaziz Sache-dina, Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdi in Twelver Shi'ism (Albany, N.Y.: State Univer-sity of New York Press, 1981).

Muslim Sects and Movements 297

SUFISM

The Sufis are the mystical wing of Islam. Sufism is the popularbranch of Islamic belief and practice in which Muslims seek after adirect personal experience of God and his divine love. The roots of thismovement are traced to very early times in the history of Islam.

Abdul-Haqqwrites,

Many early Muslims felt their hearts to be so rusty that they resorted toasceticism and self-renunciation as a measure of relief. The first century ofIslam found Muslims possessors of a vast empire in Persia, Mesopotamia,Syria, Egypt, and North Africa. . . . Theirs was a life of luxury, with concu-bines and slaves, such as was unknown to their ancestors. This new affluentlife-style was supported by taxation of the conquered lands and booty fromon-going military campaigns. There were people in the community whodisliked the increasing worldliness that was affecting the people in general.... They began to protest against the secularization of Islam. To highlighttheir concern they took to clothing themselves in coarse cloth in the man-ner of Syrian Christian monks, cloth made of coarse wool called "suf." Onthat account they came to be called "Sufis" in course of time. 4

In agreement with Abdul-Haqq's judgment, the European Islamicist,Dermenghem, also writes, "Sufism represents a protest, at one and thesame time against juridical formalism and against the worldliness result-ing from the conquests. It gives primacy to the religion of the heart, to thelove of God and to the values of contemplation and asceticism." 5

Historically, Sufism has played a significant role in the spread of Islam.As one noted scholar of Islam points out, "It is thanks to its mysticismthat Islam is an international and universal religion." 6

In addition to its religious appeal and missionary accomplishment,Sufism has also produced some of the greatest philosophical and literarygeniuses in the history of Islam, such as Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd (Averroes),Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Kindi, and al-Farabi.7

It is also important to point out that despite the recent rise of Islamicfundamentalism in the Muslim world, Sufism is not only not declining butin fact it has found a new momentum.8 Phil Parshall, a longtime mission-

4. Abdul-Haqq, 168-69.5. Dermenghem, 72.6. See Williams, 137. Also see Phil Parshall, Bridges to Islam (Grand Rapids: Baker,

1983), 31-37.7. See Dermenghem, 74; and Williams, 155-68.8. See the comments of Professor Yusuf Ibish , an authority on Sufism as well as a polit-

ical scientist, in Waddy, 151-52.

298 Appendix 1

ary in Pakistan, even goes so far as to say, "It has been calculated that 70percent of all Muslims are acquainted with the Sufi orders within Islam. "9

THE DOCTRINES OF SUFISM

We must acknowledge the fact that "Sufism does not present a homo-geneous, closed system either in its theories or in its practices. There is noprecise agreement even on the definition of general aims." 10 Our treat-ment of this important branch of Islam will only be confined to a briefdiscussion of some of Sufism's most basic and commonly accepted con-cepts and practices.

It is a perplexing but well-established fact that much of Sufi teachingdirectly contradicts some of the most fundamental doctrines of orthodoxIslam. Whereas in orthodox Islam there is a firm belief in the absolutetranscendence and the majesty of God, in Sufism, "God is in all thingsand all things are in Him. All visible and invisible beings are an emana-tion from Him, and are not really distinct from Him." 11 This Sufi under-standing of God leads to another heretical belief that man can attaindivinehood by being absorbed into the being of God.

This Neo-Platonic and pantheistic doctrine of Sufism that describesman's ultimate goal as the absorption of human personality into thebeing of God is called fanna (annihilation). One Sufi explains this idea inthe following way: "When the temporal associates with the eternal, it hasno existence left. You hear and see nothing but Allah when you havereached the conviction that nothing besides Allah exists; when you rec-ognize that you yourself are He, that you are identical with Him; there isnothing that exists except Him."1

2

Such Sufi ideas are especially prevalent in much of Islamic poetry. Jalalal-Din Rumi (d. A.D. 1273), the most celebrated Sufi poet, writes, "In thebeginning my soul and yours were but one; my manifestation and yours,my vanishing and yours.... It would be false to speak of mine and yours,I and you have ceased to exist between us.

"13Similarly the Sufi claim that

the individual is identified with God abounds in the literature of Muslimmystics.

14

9. See Parshall, 37.10. See Goldziher, 146.11. Parshall, 53.12. See Goldziher, 144.13. See Goldziher, 135. For other brief examples of Sufi poetry, see Williams, 155-68.14. For an excellent treatment of this discussion see Richard Gramlich, "Mystical Di-

mensions of Islamic Monotheism," in Schimmel and Falaturi, 136-48. The classic exampleof such a claim is found in the tenth-century mystic, AI-Hallaj, who was executed by Mus-lim authorities due to his declaration that "I am the Truth."

Muslim Sects and Movements 299

In order to achieve farina the Sufi has to endure a lifelong journeythrough several stages of spiritual development. This spiritual journeymust take place under the guidance of a pir (the leader of a Sufi order whohimself has "arrived" at the ultimate final stage of fanna), and the onewho follows a pir is called a murid (follower).

In popular Islam, the pirs are viewed as mediators between God andman and are often believed to possess tremendous supernatural andmiraculous powers. As a result of the Sufi's dependence on the pir of aparticular order (lariqa), the Sufis in general ignore a legalistic obedienceto the Qur'an or the traditions of Muhammad. For the Sufis what countsis "a personal relationship with God and that is the really important thingin life."

15

OTHER MINOR SECTS

In addition to the major Muslim sects, there are several minor ones.The Wahhabis, who are primarily in Saudi Arabia, a strong legalisticgroup who are a radical wing of the Sunnis. Osama bin Laden was a Wah-habi. The Druze sect is located primarily in Lebanon, Syria, and northernPalestine. The Alawite sect is mostly in Syria. The Ahmadiyas are a heret-ical Muslim group from Pakistan whose founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad,claimed to be the promised Mahdi and Messiah. They also believe thatJesus, after escaping crucifixion, went to Kashmir and died in Srinagar.They also deny the virgin birth and sinless nature of Christ, discreditingany superiority of Christ over Muhammad. They are the most activeMuslim missionary group in the West.

Beyond these major and minor sects Islam has spawned two otherreligions: Sikhism in India and an eclectic religion called Baha'i thatboasts a prophet, Baha'u'llah, who supersedes Muhammad and has tem-ples scattered around the world.

The Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan is considered a heresy byorthodox Islam, since it claims there is a prophet after Muhammad,namely, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad (see Appendix 6).

15. See Parshall, 68. Parshall's treatment of Sufism and folk Islam is an excellent evan-gelical analysis of this topic.

Appendix 2

MUSLIM RELIGIOUS PRACTICES

The term "Islam" means submission to the will of God. The personwho submits is called a "Muslim," or submitted one. This submissioninvolves both beliefs (iman) and practices (deen). The basic Muslimbelieves in one God, the prophets (including his last prophet Muham-mad), angels, the Qur'an as the Word of God, and the final day of judg-ment (with heaven and hell following). These have already been dis-cussed in some detail (in Chapters 1-6).

Here we will briefly outline basic Muslim religious obligations orpractices:

• To recite the shahadah. This means to "bear witness," which isdone by reciting the creed: "There is no god but Allah, andMuhammad is His messenger." Saying this sincerely is all that isnecessary to become a Muslim.

• To pray (salat). Muslims are required to say seventeen completeprayers each day. They may pray individually or collectively. OnFriday at noon Muslims are required to gather at the mosque topray. Following the prescription in the Qur'an, Muslims are calledto prayer five times a day. This is practiced more widely in Muslimcountries.

• To fast (sawm). Followers of Muhammad commemorate hisreceiving of the Qur'an by fasting in the ninth lunar month ofRamadan. They are expected to refrain from eating food duringthe daylight hours for this entire month. However, they areallowed to eat and drink from sunset to sunrise during this time.

301

302 Appendix 2

• To give alms (zakat). Muslims are obligated to contribute one-for-tieth (2.5 percent) of their income. This is given primarily to thepoor and needy.

• To make the Pilgrimage (hap). It is the duty of every Muslim tomake a trip to Mecca (in Arabia) at least once in his lifetime, pro-vided he or she is physically and financially able. Each pilgrimmust wear a white garment called ihram, which is to eliminate alldistinctions of class or status during the hajj. The trip usually takesa week or more, sometimes even a month, since it involves visitingseveral sacred sites. After the pilgrimage, a person is entitled to becalled a hajji.

Appendix 3

THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS

Muslims often cite The Gospel of Barnabas in defense of Islamic teach-ing. In fact, it is a best seller in Muslim countries. Yusuf Ali refers to it inhis commentary on the Qur'an.1 Suzanne Haneef, in her annotated bib-liography on Islam, highly recommends it, saying, "Within it one findsthe living Jesus portrayed far more vividly and in character with the mis-sion with which he was entrusted than any other of the four New Testa-ment Gospels has been able to portray him." It is called "essential readingfor any seeker of the truth." 2 Typical of Muslim claims is that of Muham-mad Ata ur-Rahim, who insisted that "The Gospel of Barnabas is the onlyknown surviving Gospel written by a disciple of Jesus.... (It] wasaccepted as a Canonical Gospel in the churches of Alexandria up until325 A.D." 3 Another Muslim author, M. A. Yusseff, argues confidently that"in antiquity and authenticity, no other gospel can come close to The

Gospel of Barnabas." 4

These are strange statements in view of the fact that reputable schol-ars have carefully examined The Gospel of Barnabas and find absolutelyno basis for its authenticity. After reviewing the evidence in an article inIslamochristiana, J. Slomp concluded: "in my opinion scholarly researchhas proved absolutely that this 'gospel' is a fake. This opinion is also heldby a number of Muslim scholars."5 In their introduction to the Oxford

1. Yusuf All, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an, 230.2. Haneef, 186.3. Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim, Jesus, A Prophet of Islam (Karrachi, Pakistan: Begum

Aisha Bawany Waqf, 1981), 41.4. M. A. Yusseff, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Barnabas , and the New Testament

(Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1985), 5.5.J . Slomp, "The Gospel in Dispute," in Islamochristiana (Rome: Pontificio Instituto di

Saudi Arabi, 1978), vol. 4, 68.

303

304 Appendix 3

edition of The Gospel of Barnabas, Longsdale and Ragg conclude that"the true date lies ... nearer to the sixteenth century than to the first." 6

Likewise, in his classic work "Jomier proved his point by showingbeyond any doubt that the G. B. V. [Gospel of Barnabas Vienna ms.] con-tains an islamicised late medieval gospel forgery." 7

A central idea in this work is in accord with a basic Muslim claim,namely, that Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, this book contendsthat Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus (sect. 217). This view hasbeen adopted by many Muslims, since the vast majority of them believethat someone else was substituted on the cross for Jesus.

EVIDENCE FOR AUTHENTICITY LACKING

Our concern here is about the authenticity of this alleged gospel. Thatis, is it a first-century gospel, written by a disciple of Christ? The evidenceis overwhelmingly negative.

First of all, the earliest reference to it comes from a fifth-century work,Decretum Gelasianum (Gelasian Decree, by Pope Gelasius, A.D. 492-95).But even this reference is in doubt.8 However there is no original lan-guage manuscript evidence for its existence! Slomp says flatly, "There isno text tradition whatsoever of the G. B. V." 9 By contrast, the New Testa-ment books are verified by nearly 5,700 Greek manuscripts that begin inthe second and third centuries A.D. (see Chapter 10).

Second, L. Bevan Jones notes that "the earliest form of it known to usis in an Italian manuscript. This has been closely analyzed by scholarsand is judged to belong to the fifteenth or sixteenth century, i.e., 1400years after the time of Barnabas." 10 Even Muslim defenders of it, likeMuhammad Ata ur-Rahim, admit that they have no manuscripts of itbefore the 1500s.

Third, this gospel is widely used by Muslim apologists today, yet there

6. Longsdale and Luara Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907),xxxvii.

7. J. Jomier, Egypte: Reflexions stir la Recontre al-Azhar (Vatican au Caire, avil 1978),cited by Slomp, 104.

8. Slomp notes several facts that place this reference to The Gospel of Barnabas indoubt. First, only its name is mentioned; there are no contents or manuscripts of it fromthis period. Second, it is mentioned as a spurious book rejected by the church. Third, the"Gelasian Decrees were published immediately after the invention of the printing pressand therefore available in many libraries." Hence, "A forger, Jomier believes, could easilyhave had access to these Decrees and taken hold of the title in order to give his own booksome air of truth and respectability" (cited by Slomp, 74).

9. Ibid.10. L. Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, rev. ed. (Calcutta: Baptist Mis-

sion Press, 1964), 79.

The Gospel of Barnabas 305

is no reference to it by any Muslim writer before the fifteenth or sixteenthcentury. But surely they would have used it if it had been in existence. AsRagg observes, "Against the supposition that the Gospel of Barnabasever existed in Arabic we must set the argument from the total silenceabout such a Gospel in the polemical literature of the Moslems. This hasbeen admirably catalogued by Steinschneider in his monograph on thesubject. "11

Ragg goes on to note the many Muslim writers who wrote books whowould no doubt have referred to such a work—had it been in existence—such as Ibn Hasm (d. 456 A.H. ), Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 728 A.H.), Abu'l-Fadl al-Su'udi (wrote 942 A.H.), and Hajji Khalifah (d. 1067 A.H.). But not one ofthem, or anyone else, ever refers to it between the seventh and fifteenthcenturies when Muslims and Christians were in heated debate.

Fourth, no father or teacher of the Christian church ever quoted itfrom the first to the fifteenth century. If The Gospel of Barnabas had beenconsidered authentic, it more surely would have been cited many timesby some Christian teacher during this long period of time, as were all theother canonical books of Scripture. What is more, had this gospel evenbeen in existence, authentic or not, certainly it would have been cited bysomeone. But no father cited it during its supposed existence for over1,500 years!

Fifth, sometimes it is confused with the first-century Epistle of(Pseudo] Barnabas (c. A.D. 70-90), which is an entirely different book. 12

In this way Muslim scholars falsely allege there is support for an earlydate. Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim confuses the two books, thus wronglyclaiming that it was in circulation in the second and third centuries A.D.

This is a strange error since he admits that they are listed as differentbooks in the "Sixty Books" as "Serial No. 18 Epistle of Barnabas.... SerialNo. 24. Gospel of Barnabas. "13 In one place Rahim even cites by namethe "Epistle of Barnabas" as evidence of the existence of the Gospel ofBarnabas! 14

Some have mistakenly assumed that the reference to a gospel used byBarnabas referred to in the apocrypha] Acts of Barnabas (before c. A.D.

478) was The Gospel of Barnabas. However, this is clearly false, as thequotation reveals: "Barnabas, having unrolled the Gospel, which we havereceived from Matthew his fellow-labourer, began to teach the Jews." 15 By

11. Longsdale and Ragg, xlviii. Steinschneider's monograph is listed as Abhandlungenfur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 1877.

12. See Slomp, 37-38.13. See Ala ur-Rahim, 42-43.14. Ibid., 42.15. See Slomp, 110, emphasis ours.

306 Appendix 3

deliberately omitting this emphasized phrase, the impression is giventhat there is a Gospel of Barnabas!

Sixth, the message of the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas is completelyrefuted by eyewitness first-century documents that possess over fivethousand manuscripts to support their authenticity, namely, the NewTestament. For example, its teaching that Jesus did not claim to be theMessiah and that he did not die on the cross are thoroughly refuted byeyewitness, first-century documents (see our Chapters 10 and 11).

Seventh, no Muslim should accept the authenticity of The Gospel ofBarnabas since it clearly contradicts the Qur'an's claim that Jesus was theMessiah. It claims, "Jesus confessed, and said the truth; 'I am not theMessiah. . . . I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salva-tion; but after me shall come the Messiah" (sects. 42, 48). This is flatlycontradictory to the Qur'an, which repeatedly calls Jesus the "Messiah"[the " Christ " ] (cf. 5:19, 75).

Eighth, even Muslim scholars like Suzanne Haneef, who highly recom-mends it, have to admit that "the authenticity of this book has not beenunquestionably established" and that "it is believed to be an apocryphalaccount of the life of Jesus. " 6 Other Muslim scholars doubt its authen-ticity too. 17 For the book contains anachronisms and descriptions ofmedieval life in western Europe that reveal that it was not written beforethe fourteenth century. For example, it refers to the year of Jubilee com-ing every one hundred years, instead of fifty as it was practiced before thistime ( The Gospel of Barnabas, 82). The papal declaration to change it toevery one hundred years was made by the church in A.D. 1343. John Gil-christ, in his work titled Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas,concludes that "only one solution can account for this remarkable coin-cidence. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas only quoted Jesus asspeaking of the jubilee year as coming 'every hundred years' because heknew of the decree of Pope Boniface." He added, "but how could he knowof this decree unless he lived at the same time as the Pope or sometimeafterwards? This is a clear anachronism that compels us to conclude thatthe Gospel of Barnabas could not have been written earlier than the four-teenth century after Christ. "18 One significant anachronism is the factthat The Gospel of Barnabas uses the text from the Roman Catholic LatinVulgate translation of the Bible (fourth century A.D.), even though Barna-bas supposedly wrote it in the first century A.D. Other examples of anach-

16. Haneef claims it was "lost to the world for centuries due to its suppression as a he-retical document," but there is not a shred of documented evidence for this. In fact, it wasnot even mentioned by anyone before it first appeared in the sixth century.

17. See Slomp, 68.18. John Gilchrist, Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas (Durban, Republic of

South Africa: Jesus to the Muslims, 1980), 16-17.

The Gospel of Barnabas 307

ronisms include a vassal who owes a share of his crop to his lord (The Gos-pel of Barnabas, 122), an illustration of medieval feudalism; a reference towooden wine casks (ibid., 152), rather than wine skins as were used inPalestine; and a medieval court procedure (ibid., 121).

Ninth, Jomier provides a list of many mistakes and exaggerations inThe Gospel of Barnabas. There are historical mistakes, such as, "Jesus wasborn when Pilate was governor, though he did not become governor until26 or 27 A.D."19 There are also geographical mistakes. For example, Chap-ter 20 "stated that Jesus sailed to Nazareth," even though it is not on theseashore.20 Likewise, The Gospel of Barnabas contains exaggerations,such as Chapter 17 ' s mention of 144,000 prophets and 10,000 prophetsbeing slain by Jizebel (in Chapter 18). 21

Tenth, according to Slomp, "Jomier's study showed many Islamic ele-ments throughout the text that prove beyond any doubt that a Muslimauthor, probably a convert, worked on the book." Fourteen such influ-ences are noted. For example, Jomier notes that the word "pinnacle" ofthe temple, where Jesus is said to have preached—hardly a good place!—was translated into arabic by dikka, a platform used in mosques.

22Also,

Jesus is represented as coming only for Israel but Muhammad "for thesalvation of the whole world" (Chapter 11). Finally, the denial of Jesus tobe the Son of God is Qur'anic, as is the fact that Jesus' sermon is modeledafter a Muslim hutba that begins with praising God and his holy Prophet(Chapter 12).

23

In summation, the Muslim use of The Gospel of Barnabas to supporttheir teaching is devoid of evidence to support it. Indeed, its teachingseven contradict the Qur'an. This work, far from being an authentic first-century account of the facts about Jesus, is actually a late medieval fabri-cation. The only authentic first-century records we have of the life ofChrist are found in the New Testament, and it categorically contradictsthe teaching of the Gospel of Barnabas. For a further critique of this "gos-pel" the reader should consult David Sox's excellent hook titled, The Gos-pel of Barnabas.

24

19. See Slomp, 9.20. Ibid.21. Ibid.22. Ibid., 7.23. Ibid.24. Sox.

Appendix 4

POPULAR MUSLIM ACCUSATIONSAGAINST THE NEW TESTAMENT

This appendix is a brief discussion of the three most popular Muslimcharges against Christianity and especially the New Testament that oneoften encounters in Islamic books or debates. The three areas of debateare: the textual corruption of the New Testament, the historical unreli-ability of the Gospels, and the evidence of pagan influence on the mes-sage of the New Testament.

Since we have already responded to the first charge (in Chapter 10) wewill not respond to it at this point. However, we will discuss lack of under-standing that lies behind such accusations by quoting from the late Mus-lim critic of Christianity Ahmed Deedat.

THE CHARGE OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION1n his booklet entitled, Is the Bible God's Word?1 Deedat attempts to

show the textual corruption of the Bible by the fact that there are manyEnglish versions that have tried to improve on the King JamesVersion!2

He then lists what he believes are four "great errors" of the Bible—out ofwhat he says are a possible fifty thousand! The first error that Deedatpoints to in his comparison between the Revised Standard Version of theBible and the KJV is the fact that the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 has beenchanged to the phrase "a young woman." The second error is that in John3:16, the phrase "begotten son" has been changed to "only son." Deedatshows no awareness of the fact that in both of the above instances the

1. Ahmed Deedat, Is the Bible God's Word?, 6th print, Dec. 1987.2. Ibid., 7-11.

309

310 Appendix 4

original Hebrew and Greek terms have remained identical in all ourmanuscripts and that only the English phrases have been changed due tothe judgment of the translators. So it is not a question of inspiration of theBible by God in the text of its original languages (which is without anyerror) but of its translations by men into different languages (which maycontain some nonsubstantive errors).

The last two supposed errors concern the omission of 1 John 5:7 andthe shorter ending of Mark in the later translations of the Bible.3 Onceagain the invalidity of the charges is obvious to anyone who is evenslightly familiar with the science of textual criticism. 4 Christians do notclaim that every manuscript of the Bible has been copied without error.In fact, most Christian scholars believe that this verse (1 John 5:7) on theTrinity was not in the original text that God inspired, since it scarcelyappears in any manuscript before the fifteenth century. It was probably agloss (scribal comment in the margin) that was later taken as part of thetext by a subsequent translator. 5 Nor does the omission of this verse frommany modern translations of the Bible affect the Christian doctrine of theTrinity in the least, since there are many other verses that clearly teachthere are three persons in the one and only God (see Chapter 12).

Another example of Deedat's unsubstantiated charges against theBible is his statement that "out of over four thousand differing manu-scripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected fourwhich tallied with their prejudices and called them [the] Gospels of Mat-thew, Mark, Luke and John." 6 It is amazing that Deedat does not seem tounderstand that these thousands of manuscripts are simply copies of thetwenty-seven New Testament books and not thousands of separatebooks orgospels!7

Further, while many Muslims charge the Bible with textual corruption,they remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that the Qur'an itself has suf-fered from a multitude of textual variations (see Chapter 9). 8 If the divineauthenticity of a book were to be based on the unanimous agreementamong all the human-made copies of the original documents, then the

3. Ibid., 12-21. We should also note that Deedat is very fond of quoting Jehovah's Wit-nesses for support of his charges against the integrity of the biblical text!

4. For two excellent and standard treatments of the subject of New Testament textualcriticism, the reader is encouraged to refer to Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testa-ment: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press,1968, 2d ed.); and Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, rev. ed. (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1989).

5. See N. L. Geisler and Nix, 483-84.6. See Deedat, 24.7. For a complete response to Deedat's charges, see John Gilchrist, The Textual History

of the Qur'an and the Bible (Villach, Austria: Light of Life, 1988, reprint).8. See ibid., 27.

Popular Muslin Accusations against the New Testament 311

Qur'an itself will undoubtedly fail the test! Contrary to the opinion ofmany Muslims, we do not have the original copy of the Qur'an or eventhe original official Uthmanic codex. As Gilchrist points out, "the oldesttext of the Qur'an still extant dates from the second century after theHijrah and is compiled on vellum in the early al - mail Arabic script. Otherearly Qur'ans are in Kufic script and date from the same time as well." 9

Sir Norman Anderson's comment in this context is also well-taken."So, although it is true that today the Kufan text of Hafs is acceptedalmost everywhere in the Muslim world, the claim commonly made byMuslims that they have the ipsissima verba ]exact words] of whatMuhammad actually said, without any variant readings, rests upon anignorance of the facts of history." 10

What many Muslim scholars forget is this parallel with their ownScriptures. Guillaume notes that:

The truth is that the textual history of the Qur'an is very similar to that of theBible 'emphasis ours'. Both books have been preserved remarkably well.Each is, in its basic structure and content, a very fair record of what wasoriginally there. But neither hook has been preserved totally without erroror textual defect. Both have suffered here and there from variant readingsin the early codices known to us but neither has in any way been corrupted.Sincere Christians and Muslims will honestly acknowledge these facts.

He adds that

The only difference between the Qur'an and the Bible today is that theChristian Church in the interest of truth, carefully preserved the variantreadings ... whereas the Muslims at the time of Uthman deemed it expedi-ent to destroy as far as possible all the evidences of different readings of theQur'an in the cause of standardizing one text for the whole of the Muslim.... These facts must also always he considered against the background offurther evidence in the Hadith that the Qur'an today is still not complete."

THE CHARGE OF HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY

Another often encountered Muslim charge is simply a rehash of theconclusions of the so-called higher-critical scholarship. It seems thatMuslim authors never bother to assess the validity of these scholars' pre-suppositions, methodologies, and arguments, but are just happy toreport their skeptical conclusions.

9. See Gilchrist, 27.10. Anderson, 47.11. Ibid., 20-21.

312 Appendix 4

Typical of this approach is Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim's Jesus, AProphet of Islam. The author writes:

More and more people are now aware that the Christianity they know haslittle to do with the original teaching of Jesus. During the last two centuriesthe research of the historians has left little room for faith in the Christian" mysteries", but the proven fact that the Christ of the established Churchhas almost nothing to do with the Jesus of history does not in itself helpChristians toward the Truth.

12

The author goes on to refer to the works of David Strauss, who "almostdestroyed the historic credibility not only of the fourth but also of the firstthree Gospels as well." 13 After such a quick dismissal of the biblical testi-mony to Jesus, in the chapter ironically entitled "An Historical Account ofJesus," Rahim presumes (without any arguments) the historicity of the"Gospel of Barnabas," gives us a portrayal of Christ based on the writingsof some medieval Muslim poets, and concludes that Jesus was the leaderof a band of revolutionary Essences!

14

In a similar fashion Rahim dismisses the most well-established fact ofChristianity, the crucifixion. He writes, "The 'arrest', the 'trial', and the'crucifixion' are hedged around with so many contradictions and mis-statements, that it is extremely difficult to untangle and penetratethrough them in order to arrive at what actually happened." 15 Instead ofaccepting the Gospel accounts of the events surrounding Jesus' death,the author proposes a typical Islamic version of the situation in which itwas Judas who was mistakenly arrested and crucified. 16 The most aston-ishing proposal of Rahim concerns the role of Pilate. He writes, "Finally,there is another significant fact. In the calendars of the Saints of the Cop-tic Church, both in Egypt and in Ethiopia, Pilate and his wife appear as'saints'. This could be possible only if we accept that Pilate, knowing fullwell that his soldiers had made a wrong arrest, knowingly condemnedJudas in place of Jesus, and allowed the latter to escape."

17

12. Ata ur-Rahim, 13.13. Ibid., 14.14. Ibid., 17-38.15. Ibid., 35.16. Ibid., 36. It is interesting that Deedat, the most well-known Muslim apologist, de-

parts from the traditional Islamic denial of Jesus' crucifixion, and instead opts for theswoon theory as a way to deny the reality of Jesus' death on the cross. It is noteworthy thatDeedat himself has been condemned on this point by orthodox Muslim authorities ofSouth Africa! See John Gilchrist, The Crucifixion of Christ: A Fact, not Fiction (Villach, Aus-tria: Light of Life).

17. Ibid., 37.

Popular Muslim Accusations against the New Testament 313

One wonders how such fanciful accounts without a shred of reliablehistorical evidence can claim to give us a true picture of the historicalJesus. On what basis should we reject the authenticity of the Gospels infavor of the baseless Muslim speculations or dogmatic Qur'anic asser-tions? It must seem to the unbiased reader that on this most crucial pointconcerning Jesus' crucifixion that it is the Qur'an and not the Bible that ismistaken.

It is outside the scope of this appendix to respond fully to the chargesagainst the historical reliability of the Gospels. Much can be said indefense of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament by way ofarchaeological discoveries, non-Christian and extrabiblical historicalrecords, and the early date of the composition of the majority of New Tes-tament books.

As one example we cite the conclusion of the classical Roman histo-rian, A. N. Sherwin-White, concerning the historical reliability of theBook of Acts (it is agreed by almost all biblical scholars that the author ofActs was the same as that of the Gospel of Luke): "For the New Testamentbook of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.... Anyattempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail must nowappear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted." 18 How-ever, the author admits that due to biased and critical presuppositions "itis astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing inconfidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, start-ing from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn." 19 Butwe agree with Craig Blomberg, an evangelical New Testament scholar,that "such gloom should be replaced by a radiant endorsement of the his-torical reliability of the four gospels, and there are some encouragingsigns that in places that is in fact beginning to occur."20

18. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1963), 189.

19. Ibid., 187.20. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels ( Downers Grove: InterVar-

sity, 1987), 254. Blomberg's book is an excellent introduction to this field. For a much moredetailed and highly technical discussion of these issues, see R. T. France and David Wen-ham, eds., Gospel Perspectives (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980-86, 6 vols). Also a brief but clas-sical study of the New Testament's historical reliability is F. F. Bruce, The New TestamentDocuments: Are They Reliable? Another important scholarly discussion concerning a studyof the historical Jesus is L Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1977), and The Origins of New Testament Christology ( Downers Grove: InterVar-sity, 1990, updated edition). Two other very helpful books concerning the historical evi-dence for Christ are Gary Habermas, The Verdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Lifeof Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1988), and R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986). Concerning the early dates for the composition of theNew Testament books and their general reliability the reader could consult with John A. T.Robinson's, Redating the New Testament (1976) and Can We Trust the New Testament

314 Appendix 4

THE CHARGE OF PAGAN I NFLUENCE

The last charge that we would briefly address at this point is once againa rehash of outdated negative critical scholarship mixed with a misin-formed and misleading Muslim "version" of church history

21According

to this charge the apostle Paul and some of the later church fathers cor-rupted much of the purity of Jesus' teachings by mixing the paganism oftheir day with the original message of Christ. For example, Yousuf SaleemChisti in his book What Is Christianity: Being a Critical Examination ofFundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, attributes such doctrinesas the deity of Christ and the atonement to the pagan teachings of theapostle Paul, and the doctrine of the Trinity to the pagan formulations ofchurch fathers.

22

Chisti also attempts to demonstrate the vast influence of mystery reli-gions on Christianity by stating:

The Christian doctrine of atonement was greatly coloured by the influenceof the mystery religions, especially Mithraism, which had its own son ofGod and virgin Mother, and crucifixion and resurrection after expiating forthe sins of mankind and finally his ascension to the 7th heaven.

If you study the teachings of Mithraism side by side with that of Chris-tianity, you are sure to be amazed at the close affinity which is visiblebetween them, so much so that many critics are constrained to concludethat Christianity is the facsimile or the second edition of Mithraism.

23

The author goes on to list some of these similarities by noting thatMithra was also considered the son of God and savior, was born of a vir-gin, had twelve disciples, was crucified, rose from the grave the third day,atoned for the sins of humankind, and finally returned to his father inheaven.

24

By way of a brief response we need to point out that an honest readingof all the New Testament data will clearly demonstrate that Paul did notteach a new religion. Paul, similar to Jesus, taught that Christianity was a

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). Robinson's "conservative" conclusions are quite signifi-cant in view of the fact that the author himself is a highly critical scholar of the New Testa-ment! Finally , for a consideration of the latest and the most up to date issues in gospelscholarship one can refer to the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel Green, ScotMcKnight, and Howard Marshall, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992).

21.See Yusseff, 1985).22. Yousuf Saleem Chisti, What Is Christianity: Being A Critical Examination of Funda-

mental Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Karachi, Pakistan: World Federation of IslamicMissions, 1970).

23. Ibid., 87.24. Ibid., 87-88.


fulfillment of Judaism (Rom. 10:4, 9-11; Col. 2:16-17; Matt. 5:18; Luke16:16-17). Both taught that men are sinners (Mark 3:38; Rom. 3:23) andthat Jesus died, with his shed blood providing atonement for sin (Matt.26:28; Mark 10:45; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:8). The death and burial of Jesus werecompleted by his resurrection (Luke 24:46-47; John 20:25-29; Rom. 10:9).Yet man cannot save himself, but needs God's grace and leading (Matt.19:25-26; John 4:44; Eph. 2:8-9), which is imparted through faith and sur-render to Christ (Mark 1:15; John 6:47; Rom. 10:9-11). The result is achanged life and commitment (Luke 14:25-35; John 15:1-11; 2 Cor. 5:17).Finally, we should remember that Paul's message of the gospel was bothchecked and approved by the original apostles (Gal. 1-2), demonstratingofficial recognition that his message was not opposed to that of Jesus. 25

As we have already pointed out in Chapter 12, even though the Trin-ity—either the term itself or its specific formulation—does not appear inthe Bible, nevertheless, it is a faithful expression dealing with all the bib-lical data. Also, an accurate understanding of the historical and theolog-ical development of this doctrine would amply illustrate that it wasexactly because of the dangers of paganism that the Council of Nicea for-mulated the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. 26

In response to the specific charges of the influence of Mithraism onChristianity, Chisti's descriptions of this religion are baseless (it is inter-esting that the author gives no reference for such alleged similarities).Ronald Nash, the author of The Gospel and the Greeks, describes Mithra-ism in the following way:

We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth.Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carryinga knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first with the sunand then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithraslew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race. 27

Nash continues,

Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have beenrejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and res-

25. See Habermas, 67-72. For further response to the charge that Paul corrupted Jesus'original message, the reader should refer to J. Gresham Machen's classic The Origin ofPaul's Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1925), F. F. Bruce, Paul and Jesus (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1974) and Herman Ridderbos , Paul and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957).

26. For a brief treatment of the history of this doctrine, see E. Calvin Beisner, God inThree Persons ( Wheaton: Tyndale I louse). Two of the classics in this field are G. L. Prestige,God in Patristic Thought (London: S.P.C.K., 1952) and J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doc-trines (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1958).

27. Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Dallas: Word, 1992), 144.

316 Appendix 4

urrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least duringits early stages.... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirthwould have been foreign to its basic outlook. . . . Moreover, Mithraism wasbasically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about sugges-tions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians.

Perhaps the most important argument against an early Christian depen-dence on Mithraism is the fact that the timing is all wrong. The flowering ofMithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too latefor it to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity. 28

In fact, all the allegations of Christian dependence on various mysteryreligions or Gnostic movements have been rejected by scholars in thefields of biblical and classical studies.29 The reasons for such a rejectionare mainly due to the historical character of Christianity and the earlydate of the New Testament documents that would not have allowedenough time for mythological developments on one hand, and on theother hand, the complete lack of any early historical evidence in supportof the mystery religions. As the British scholar Sir Norman Andersonexplains,

The basic difference between Christianity and the mysteries is the historicbasis of the one and the mythological character of the others. The deities ofthe mysteries were no more than "nebulous figures of an imaginary past,"while the Christ whom the apostolic kerygma proclaimed had lived anddied only a few years before the first New Testament documents were writ-ten. Even when the apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians themajority of some five hundred witnesses to the resurrection were stillalive.

30

Concerning the Qur'an, we would like to point out that, based on thefindings of reputable scholars of Islam, much of the content of the Qur'ancan be traced to either Jewish or Christian works (often from Jewish orChristian apocrypha) or pagan sources.

Arthur Jeffery, in his technical and scholarly volume The ForeignVocabulary of the Qur'an, ably proves that "not only the greater part ofthe religious vocabulary, but also most of the cultural vocabulary of theQur'an is of non-Arabic origin."31 Some of the vocabulary sourcesinclude Abyssinian, Persian, Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, and Coptic 32

28. Ibid ., 147.29. Ibid., 119.30. Sir Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions ( Downers Grove: InterVar-

sity, 1984), 52-53.31. Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an (Lahore, Pakistan: Al-Biruni,

1977), 2.32. Ibid., 12-32.


W. St. Clair-Tisdall, in his classic The Sources of Islam, also dem-onstrates the direct dependence of certain Qur'anic stories of the OldTestament on the Jewish Talmud. The influence of the Jewish apocryphacan be seen on the Qur'anic stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and theidols, and the Queen of Sheba. 33 The direct influence of Christian apoc-rypha can be seen in the story of seven sleepers and the childhood mira-cles of Jesus. For the existence of Zoroastrian doctrines in the Qur'an wecan cite the Qur'anic descriptions of the houries (virgins) in Paradise andthe sirat (the bridge between hell and Paradise).34 In addition to these,important Muslim practices such as visiting the shrine of Ka'aba, and themany details of the ceremony of hajj, including visits to the hills of Safaand Marwa, and also the throwing of stones against a stone pillar symbol-izing Satan, were all pre-Islamic practices of pagan Arabia.

35

It spite of the above evidences, it is interesting that Muslim authorshave been most unwilling to address the issue of the human origins of theQur'an, but have simply repeated their dogmatic assertions about itsdivine origin. In fact, in our research of Muslim authors we have not evencome across an acknowledgment of such problems in the Qur'an, to saynothing of solutions.

In conclusion, it is our sincere hope that the readers will consider theevidences set forth in this book, pursue their specific areas of interesteven further, and make their decision concerning the integrity and thereliability of the New Testament based on historical FACTS!

33. Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, 11-30. For a host of other si milarities, sec pp. 39-45.34. Ibid., 46-59, 74-91.35. See Dashti, 55, 93-94, 164.

Appendix 5

ISLAM AND VIOLENCE

After the events of September 11, the issue of violence and religion hasonce again come into intense discussions and debate. It is our convictionthat although various political, socioeconomic and cultural factors havesignificantly contributed to the rise of violence and terrorism in contem-porary fundamentalist Islam, we cannot ignore the religious dimensionof this violence that goes back to the very heart and origin of Islam.

The point that we'd like to make is quite simple. While many Muslimsare peace-loving, nonetheless, those who commit acts of violence andterror in the name of God can find ample justification for their actions,based on the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings and examples fromprophet Muhammad himself! We have often heard in the media that therelationship between Muslim terrorists and Islam is like that of KKK andChristianity. This analogy is clearly false. Christians who have engaged inviolence are betraying the explicit teachings and examples of JesusChrist. On the other hand, Muslims who take upon themselves to destroytheir alleged enemies in the name of God can rightly claim to be followingthe commands of God in the Qur'an and imitating their prophet as theirrole model.

Our point, of course, should not be taken to imply that all faithful anddevout Muslims must become violent in order to be true to the teachingsof Islam. No doubt the majority of the Muslim world condemns acts ofterror and violence. There are many schools of thought in Islam with var-ious and often conflicting interpretations of the Qur'an. However, theimportant distinction that we are making is this: The minority groups inIslam who resort to violence are not an aberration to Islam but in fact canlegitimately claim to be working within the basic parameters of IslamicJihad. We will now turn to the evidence in support of our claim.

319

320 Appendix 5

SUPPORT FOR VIOLENCE IN THE QUR 'AN

The following are only some of the verses in the Qur'an that can andhave been used in the history of Islam in support of violence in the nameof God and the glories of martyrdom in a holy war.

2:190—193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slaythem wherever ye catch them . . . And fight them on until there is nomore tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith inGod..."

2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possiblethat ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thingwhich is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not."

2:224 "Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth andknoweth all things."

3:157—158 "And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness andmercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if yedie, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together."

3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead. Nay, theylive finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord."

3:195 "... Those who have ... fought or been slain, verily I will blot outfrom them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with riversflowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God ..."

4:101 ". . . For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."4:74, 75 "Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this

world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Godwhether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a rewardof great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God andthose who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against thefriends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."

4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus beon the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranksuntil they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seizethem and slay them wherever ye find them ..."

4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive nohurt and those who strive and tight in the cause of God with theirgoods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to thosewho strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit(at home)."

5:36 "The punishment of those who wage war against God and Hisapostle and strive with might and main for mischief through theland is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet

Islam and Violence 321

from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace inthis world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

5:54 "O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for yourfriends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to eachother. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is ofthem. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

8:12-17 "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'Iam with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror intothe hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smiteall their finger tips off them. This because they contend against Godand his apostle. If any contend against God and his apostle, God isstrict in punishment . . . O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbe-lievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turnhis back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war . . . hedraws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is lien, an evil ref-uge (indeed).-

8:59-60 "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (ofthe godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them makeready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds ofwar, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and yourenemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whomGod doth know ..."

8:65 "0 apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twentyamongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hun-dred. If a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers,for these are a people without understanding."

9:5 "... fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seizethem, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (ofwar) ..."

9:14 "Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover themwith shame...."

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold thatforbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle noracknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people ofthe Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious taxi with willing submis-sion, and feel themselves subdued."

47:4 "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, atlength when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly(on them).... but if it had been God's will, he could certainly haveexacted retribution from them (himself), but (he lets you fight) inorder to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in theway of God, he will never let their deeds be lost."

322 Appendix 5

61:4 "Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as ifthey were a solid cemented structure."

A simple reading of such Qur'anic passages makes it obvious how easyit is for many Muslims to feel hatred and enmity against Jews, Christians,and other non-Muslims. Although many Muslims are very fond of quot-ing some of the more "open-minded" and "inclusive" verses of the Qur'an,one cannot ignore the weight and impact of the above passages on adevout Muslim who wants to find and obey the will of God as found in theQur'an. Before we go on to other examples from prophet Muhammadhimself, we need to respond to two issues that some Muslims bring up atthis point.

ANSWERING SOME OBJECTIONS

Many have claimed that Qur'anic verses in support of fighting were fora special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. Theyargue that since prophet Muhammad was persecuted in Mecca for thefirst thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actionsin the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the bud-ding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is thatnowhere in the Qur'an itself are the above commands to fight restrictedto a special time period or against a special people group. Unlike thedivine commands found in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, thatwere specific to a time, place, and people group, orthodox Muslimsbelieve that the Qur'anic commands are universal and thus applicablefor all times and places.

A second objection that one hears is that Islam is a religion of peace,and war in Islam is only for self-defense. Jamal Badawi, a popular Muslimapologist, claims, "Actual armed jihad is permissible under two condi-tions alone: one is for self-defense, and the other is for fighting againstoppression."' Although, Badawi is quite accurate in describing the con-ditions of armed jihad in Islam, what he fails to say is that the definitionsof "self-defense" and "fighting against oppression" are much broaderthan usually understood. Many orthodox Muslims believe that if anation's leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulersare "oppressors" and thus a legitimate target for war. 2 Many Muslimsargue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood val-ues all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in

1. Cited in Diana Eck, A New Religious America (San Francisco: Harper, 2001), 238.2. See John Kelsay, Islam and War (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 35.


self-defense. 3 Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group candefine "self-defense" and "oppression" and thus find an Islamic justifica-tion for violence.

SUPPORT FOR VIOLENCE IN THE LIFEOF PROPHET MUHAMMAD

We now turn our attention to just a few examples of some of theactions and sayings of prophet Muhammad to see if Muslims can findany legitimacy for the use of violence as witnessed in the contemporaryworld. We remind the reader that we will only use the most ancient,authoritative, and original Islamic writings in support of our thesis. Theearliest biography of prophet Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq in thesecond century of the Islamic era and was later edited by Ibn Hisham inthe third century. This work was translated into English under the titleThe Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford Uni-versity Press in 1955. The following accounts are some of the sayings andactions of prophet Muhammad and his close companions found in thisbiography.

EXAMPLES FROM THE EARLIEST BIOGRAPHYOF MUHAMMAD

In the constitution of Medina, which the prophet wrote when he andhis followers migrated from Mecca in the year 622, we read, "A believershall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid anunbeliever against a believer.... Believers are friends one to the other tothe exclusion of outsiders.... The believers must avenge the blood of oneanother shed in the way of God." 4

The first in the series of assassinations that the prophet ordered was anold Jewish man named Ibnu'l-Ashraf. His crime was writing poetryagainst Muslims. "The apostle said, 'Who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?'"One of his followers volunteered and said, "I will deal with him for you, 0apostle of God, I will kill him." And the prophet responded by saying, "Doso if you can." The prophet also explicitly gave his assassins permissionto lie and use trickery in order to accomplish their mission. The reportgoes on to describe how the prophet's followers deceived the old man outof his house in the middle of the night and jumped on him with swordsand daggers and brutally murdered him. After completing their mission,

3. See Mark Galli, "Now What? A Christian response to religious terrorism," ChristianityToday, October 22, 2001.

4. Ibn Ishaq, 232.

324 Appendix 5

the followers reported back to the prophet that they "had killed God'senemy." The author concludes this incident by writing, "Our attack uponGod's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medinawho did not fear for his life." 5

In the very next incident in this biography of prophet Muhammad weread, "The apostle said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.'" Theauthor then recounts the story of two brothers, the younger one of whichwas a Muslim. Upon hearing this command, the younger Muslim brotherkills a Jewish merchant. The older brother became very critical of theaction of his younger sibling. In response the younger brother says, "Hadthe one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would havecut your head off." The older brother exclaimed, "'By God, a religionwhich can bring you to this is marvelous!' and he became a Muslim." 6

In one of the battles, after one of prophet Muhammad's uncles wassavagely killed, Muhammad became so angry that he said, "If God givesme victory over Quraysh in the future I will mutilate 30 of their men." See-ing the grief of their prophet, Muhammad's followers claimed, "By God,if God give us victory over them in the future we will mutilate them as noArab has ever mutilated anyone." Thankfully, the prophet had a changeof mind and later decided to forbid mutilation. 7

In another famous incident with Jewish people, after having alreadyexpelled two Jewish tribes from the city of Medina, the prophet orches-trated the execution of all the adult males of the last Jewish tribe of thecity and the taking of all the property and the women and children. TheMuslim sources put the number of the Jewish men who were beheadedin one day anywhere between 600 to 900. 8

On another occasion, the prophet and his companions were lookingfor the hidden treasure of a conquered tribe. An individual was broughtto Muhammad who was supposed to know where the hidden treasurewas located. The prophet threatened to kill the individual if he did not tellthe Muslims where the treasure was. Upon refusal to cooperate, "Theapostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, 'Torture him until youextract what he has,' so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chestuntil he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammadb. Maslama and he struck off his head." 9

Upon conquering Mecca, a number of individuals were ordered to bekilled by the prophet without any immunity. The crimes committed by

5. Ibid., 367-68.6. Ibid., 369.7. Ibid., 387.8. Ibid., 464.9. Ibid., 515.


the majority of these people were making "satirical songs" againstMuhammad or having insulted him during his ministry in Mecca. 10 Oneperson who was fortunate enough to be pardoned was Abdullah b. Sa'd."The reason he [Muhammad] ordered him to be killed was that he hadbeen a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatizedand returned to Quraysh." Since Abdullah was a foster brother of a closecompanion of Muhammad, he was able to receive a hearing from theprophet and ask for immunity. The prophet unwillingly granted theimmunity. After the pardoned person left, Muhammad said to his com-panions, "'1 kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off hishead!' One of the Ansar said, 'Then why didn't you give me a sign, O apos-tle of God?' He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing."

11

To one of his commanders whom the prophet was sending on an"expedition," he gave this advice, "Fight everyone in the way of God andkill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with the spoil; do nothe treacherous, nor mutilate, nor kill children. This is God's ordinanceand the practice of his prophet among you."

12

Another assassination ordered by the prophet was regarding his uncleAbu Sufyan, the leader of the pagan opposition in Mecca. Muslim volun-teers traveled to Mecca to carry out this mission. The assassinationattempt failed, however. On the way back to Medina, one of the followersof the prophet encountered a one-eyed shepherd who confidentlyclaimed that he would never accept Islam. We pick up the account fromthe Muslim assassin himself. As soon as the man was "asleep and snoring[ got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has beenkilled. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on ituntil I forced it out at the back of his neck. . . . When I got to Medina .. .the apostle asked my news and when I told him what had happened heblessed me. "13

The biography of the prophet follows this account with two morereports of successful assassinations ordered by the prophet. Abu Afakhad "showed his disaffection with the apostle" by composing a poem."The apostle said, 'Who will deal with this rascal for me?' whereuponSalim b. Umayr . . . went forth and killed him." 14 After this assassination,a woman by the name of Asma b. Marwan "displayed disaffection" andalso composed a poem against the prophet. "When the apostle heardwhat she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?'

10. Ibid., 551.11. Ibid., 550.12. Ibid., 672.13. Ibid., 674-75.14. Ibid., 675.

326 Appendix 5

Umayr ... who was with him heard him, and that very night he went toher house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and toldhim what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, 'You have helped Godand His apostle, 0 Umayr.'" 15

Once again, we think the above sample (which by no means is anexhaustive list of the violence found in the earliest biography of theprophet) is enough to provide more than an adequate justification for thekilling and destruction of anyone who opposes the ideology of Islam andits demand for total submission. However, what is even more importantfor the shaping of Muslim attitude and behavior is not the reports of sucha biography but the collections of Muhammad's sayings and actions inthe hadith literature.

SAYINGS FROM THE HADITH

We will now look at a few examples from the hadith. The following area few examples in the hadith collection of Bukhari, the most authoritativebook in Sunni Islam, second only to the Qur'an (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 9 vols.translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Al Nabawiya: Dar Ahya Us-Sunnah, n.d.).

Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." 16

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till theysay, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says,'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property willbe saved by me ..." 17

It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and freethem with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter (among his ene-mies) in the land ...18

Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him. 19

An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy satwith the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then wentaway. The Prophet said (to his companions), "Chase and kill him." So, Ikilled him. The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy. 20

15. Ibid., 675-76.16. AI-Bukhari, vol. 4, 55.17. Ibid., vol. 4, 124.18. Ibid., vol. 4, 161.19. Ibid., vol. 9, 45.20. Ibid., vol. 4, 181-82.


Some people from the tribe of Ukl came to the Prophet and embracedIslam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet orderedthem to go to the (herd of milk) camels of charity and to drink their milkand urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered fromtheir ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted fromIslam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. TheProphet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and)brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cutoff and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, andthat their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

21

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and wasasked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night withthe probability of exposing their women and children to danger. TheProphet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e.pagans). "22

The above tradition, like many others, is also repeated in other collec-tions of prophet Muhammad's sayings. In the second most authoritativehadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, the chapter that discusses thisparticular saying is entitled, "Permissibility of killing women and chil-dren in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate." The author thengoes on to write, "It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama thatthe Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about thewomen and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid,said: They are from them"

23

We will end this discussion with two more traditions from another col-lection, Sunan Abu Dawud. Under a chapter entitled, "Excellence of kill-ing an infidel" we read the following saying. "Abu Harairah reported theApostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: An infidel and theone who killed him will never be brought together in Hell." The Muslimtranslator of this work adds the following footnote to this tradition, "Thismeans that a person who kills an infidel while fighting in Allah's path (i.e.jihad) will have his sins remitted and forgiven, and will, therefore, go toParadise. The infidel will inevitably go to Hell. Thus the man who killedan infidel will not be brought together in Hell with him."

24

Another chapter in this collection is entitled, "Punishment of a manwho abuses the Prophet (may peace be upon him)." The author recountsthe story of a Muslim man who killed his slave and concubine by whom

21. Ibid., vol. 8, 519-20.22. Ibid., vol 4, 158-59.23. Abduhl Amid Siddiqi, trans. The Sahih of Muslim, vol 3, 946-47.24. Ahmad Hasan, trans. Sunan Abu Dawud (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1990), vol. 2,

690.

328 Appendix 5

he had two children. Since she "disparaged" the Prophet, the slaveowner, "took the dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till [he] killedher." Upon hearing the reason for this murder, the prophet said, "Oh, bewitness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. "25 The next incident inthe above chapter is reported by Ali. "A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet(may peace be upon him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till shedied. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) declared that no rec-ompense was payable for her blood. "26 Once again, the translator pro-vides us with the following explanatory notes: "It is unanimously agreedthat if a Muslim abuses or insults the Prophet (may peace be upon him)he should be killed.... even if a Jew or any non-Muslim abuses theProphet (may peace be upon him) he will be killed. . . . The punishmentfor abusing or opposing the Prophet (may peace be upon him) wasdeath. "27

CONCLUSIONViolence in Islam, whether in the form of terrorism, or the persecution

of Christians and other minorities in the Muslim world, or capital pun-ishment for an individual who turns away from Islam, or death threats onSalman Rushdie for allegedly insulting prophet Muhammad, are not sim-ply some isolated incidents or aberrations from the true and peacefulreligion of Islam. Such violence in fact goes to the very roots of Islam asfound in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of the prophet of Islamhimself. Osama bin Laden quoted some of the very same Qur'anic andhadith passages that we have documented here in order to provide reli-gious justification of his actions.28

We would like to conclude this section by referring to a program pro-duced by Frontline and shown on PBS around the country entitled, "TheSaudi Time Bomb." At one point in this program we were told about thestate sponsored religious education in Saudi Arabia. According to Front-line, "approximately 35% of school studies is devoted to compulsorySaudi religious education." One of these textbooks published in 2000 wasa collection of prophet Muhammad's sayings, which was used by middleschool students in Saudi Arabia. One lesson is entitled, "The Victory ofMuslims Over Jews." According to a tradition from prophet Muhammad,"The last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews andthe Muslims will kill them so Jews would hide behind rocks and trees.Then the rocks and trees would call: oh, Muslim, oh, servant of God!

25. Ibid., vol. 3, 1214-15.26. Ibid., 1215.27. Ibid., 1215.28. See the transcript of his video tape in the New York Times, 14 December 2001, 134.


There is a Jew, behind me, come and kill him." Like a good textbook, theteachings of this saying are summarized in several propositional state-ments such as:

• It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till theend of the world.

• This Hadith predicts for the Muslims God's victory over the Jews.• Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers. They will never

approve of the Muslims, beware of them (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/ textbooks.html).

Ideas have consequences. It has also become very clear for our worldonce again that violent ideas have violent consequences. We are notengaging in old Christian-Muslim polemics when we point out the prev-alence of violence throughout the foundations and thus subsequent his-tory of Islam. We are only exposing the teachings in the most original andauthoritative sources of Islam. We believe that it is essential for people ofgoodwill around the world to know that underneath all the political,social, and cultural causes for the rise of violence among Muslims, thereis a religious foundation for violence deeply embedded within the veryworldview of Islam. The world needs to take the challenge of Islam moreseriously than at any other time in the past.

Appendix 6

BLACK ISLAM

WITH STACEY JACOBS

Islam is gaining its largest percentage of converts from the African-American community. One of the dominate sects within Black Islam iscalled The Nation of Islam, whose current leader is Louis Farrakhan. Abrief background of The Nation of Islam will be helpful in understandingits beliefs. It should be noted up front, however, that this group is notconsidered to be a form of genuine Islam by orthodox Muslims since TheNation of Islam affirms the existence of a prophet after Muhammad. Fur-thermore, as the following discussion will indicate, they deviate fromorthodox Islam in a number of other ways, including their view of God.

I. BACKGROUND

LOUIS FARRAKHAN

When Muhammad died in 1975, his son, Wallace Deen, who soughtunification between the Black Muslims and orthodox Islam, succeededhim. Although he initially supported Deen's leadership of the group, thisproposed trend was unacceptable to Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan was theleader of the Harlem Mosque at the time and was essentially second incommand in the Nation at that time. Farrakhan preferred the teachingsof Elijah Muhammad, and in 1977 broke from the Black Muslims, return-ing to his mentor's teaching. He started the faction that bears the name"Nation of Islam" (a name also used by Elijah Muhammad). Conse-

331

332 Appendix 6

quently, the Black Muslims of Wallace Deen joined orthodox Islam andare now known as the American Muslim Mission (or American MuslimSociety), where they have laid aside much of the racial hatred perpe-trated by Elijah Muhammad, allowing whites to join the group as well.

An example in microcosm of current Nation of Islam rhetoric is wellsummarized by Sidney Ahlstrom in A Religious History of theAmericanPeople:

[Their] eschatology teaches that God has come; there is no life after this life;heaven and hell are only two contrasting earthly conditions; the hereafter(which will begin to appear about A.D. 2000) is but the end of the present"spook" civilization of the Caucasian usurpers, including the Christian reli-gion. It will be followed by the redemption of the Black Nation and theirglorious rule over all the earth (1972, p. 1068).

Ostensibly, the message of the Nation of Islam (as presented by Farra-khan at the Million-Man March) is one of social atonement and reconcil-iation; it is a call for the black community to strive for moral and ethicalsuperiority. Farrakhan called the audience to give up drugs, prostitution,and violence, and to commit to improving themselves "spiritually, mor-ally, mentally, socially, politically, and economically" (1995). These arelaudable concerns that should transcend race. If lower crime rates,higher economic productivity, and an over-all improvement in the qual-ity of life for African-Americans result from the efforts of Farrakhan, thenall people will have reason to rejoice.

In his Million-Man March speech, Farrakhan argued that the UnitedStates is rotten at its very foundation because it has been characterizedfrom the beginning by white supremacy. For example, he said:

The Seal and the Constitution [of the United States—BTB] reflect the think-ing of the founding fathers, that this was to be a nation by White people andfor White people. Native Americans, Blacks, and all other non-White peo-ple were to be the burden bearers for the real citizens of this nation (1995).

Given this, the official beliefs of the Nation of Islam can be examinedin order to more clearly see what is presently the basis of its fundamentaldoctrine.

II. WHAT BLACK MUSLIMS BELIEVE(Taken from "The Muslim Program" section of The Final Call online

edition)

1. WE BELIEVE in the One God Whose proper Name is Allah.

Black Islam 333

2. WE BELIEVE in the Holy Qur 'an and in the Scriptures of all theProphets of God.

3. WE BELIEVE in the truth of the Bible, but we believe that it hasbeen tampered with and must be reinterpreted so that mankindwill not be snared by the falsehoods that have been added to it.

4. WE BELIEVE in Allah 's Prophets and the Scriptures they broughtto the people.

5. WE BELIEVE, in the resurrection of the dead—not in physicalresurrection—but in mental resurrection. We believe that the so-called Negroes are most in need of mental resurrection; thereforethey will be resurrected first.Furthermore, we believe we are the people of God's choice, as ithas been written, that God would choose the rejected and thedespised. We can find no other persons fitting this description inthese last days more that the so-called Negroes in America. Webelieve in the resurrection of the righteous.

6. WE BELIEVE in the judgment; we believe this first judgment willtake place as God revealed, in America.

7. WE BELIEVE this is the time in history for the separation of the so-called Negroes and the so-called white Americans. We believe theBlack man should be freed in name as well as in fact. By this wemean that he should be freed from the names imposed upon himby his former slave masters. Names which identified him as beingthe slave master's slave. We believe that if we are free indeed, weshould go in our own people's names—the black people of theEarth.

8. WE BELIEVE in justice for all, whether in God or not; we believe asothers, that we are due equal justice as human beings. We believein equality—as a nation—of equals. We do not believe that we areequal with our slave masters in the status of "freed slaves." We rec-ognize and respect American citizens as independent peoples andwe respect their laws which govern this nation.

9. WE BELIEVE that the offer of integration is hypocritical and ismade by those who are trying to deceive the Black peoples intobelieving that their 400-year-old open enemies of freedom, justiceand equality are, all of a sudden, their "friends." Furthermore, webelieve that such deception is intended to prevent Black peoplefrom realizing that the time in history has arrived for the separa-tion from the whites of this nation.If the white people are truthful about their professed friendshiptoward the so-called Negro, they can prove it by dividing up Amer-ica with their slaves. We do not believe that America will ever be

334 Appendix 6

able to furnish enough jobs for her own millions of unemployed,in addition to jobs for the 20,000,000 black people as well.

10. WE BELIEVE that we who declare ourselves to be righteous Mus-lims, should not participate in wars which take the lives ofhumans. We do not believe this nation should force us to take partin such wars, for we have nothing to gain from it unless Americaagrees to give us the necessary territory wherein we may havesomething to fight for.

11. WE BELIEVE our women should be respected and protected as thewomen of other nationalities are respected and protected.

12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W.Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of theChristians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims.

13. WE BELIEVE further and lastly that Allah is God and besides HIMthere is no God and Ile will bring about a universal government ofpeace wherein we all can live in peace together.

III. VIEW OF GOD

FARRAKHAN 'S VIEW OF GOD

Although the wording is monotheistic, "One God," the language usedto describe God and his prophets can be interpreted variously as panthe-istic, dualistic, and polytheistic, and even panentheist (process theol-ogy). Black apologists, Dr. Jerry Buckner claims: "The Nation of Islam is apolytheistic religion. Several references in their literature point to a beliefin many gods, and there is a council of 23 scientists-gods who write his-tory." One of them, Yakub, "... rebelled against Allah and the council,causing havoc. He created the white race of devils to strike back at theblack race." 1

Louis Farrakhan speaks of God (Allah) as being self-created out of eter-nal darkness. He wrote: "The Hon. Elijah Muhammad taught us God isself created. The Holy Qur'an says He is not begotten. If God is not begot-ten, then God is the Originator of Himself. In the process of God's self cre-ation, He had to overcome many things." For one, "He has to overcomefrustration with the pace of His own evolution, and the disappointmentof that pace gave rise to patience." 2

Like human beings, God was formed out of darkness. "The darknessout of which God created Himself has no equal, except in the triple dark-

1. See Buckner, "Witnessing to the Nation of Islam," Christian Research Journal 20, no.3 (Jan-Mar 1998), 40-41.

2. Farrakhan, "The Name of the True Religion?" The Final Call, February 17, 1998, 20-21.

Black Islam 335

ness of the womb of the female. God made her womb a replication of thewomb out of which He came." Hence, "If light is in the essence of the cell,energy is there, intelligence is there. God formed Himself in the darkness.He had to overcome the darkness." So, "When He (God) comes into exist-ence, He comes into existence a light of Himself, coming up out of thedarkness; this is the way we come into existence, bearing witness to Hisorigination." He continues, "He was a light of Himself in darkness. Sohere we have a duality. His light coming up out of darkness. He was life inthe midst of death. Death, in this sense, is described as inanimate matterhaving no purpose or function." 3

Farrakhan also speaks of human beings as having a "divine essence,"a gold that needs purifying. "When we are purified, we will become theeternal transmitters of God's divine spirit and wisdom, thus making us... the true house of God." He falls short, however, of absolute panthe-ism, claiming we are an "image" of God. "When we use the term image, itmeans that we are like God in form, appearance and semblance. We area counterpart, a copy, a type, an embodiment. . . . It means to mirror orreflect."4

If God's self creation is taken literally, then one is left with the logicalabsurdity that God created himself out of nothing. Giving the benefit of thedoubt that God's "self creation" is an eternal process, the best twist one cangive to Farrakhan's view is a form of process theology (panentheism).

Likewise, if the "council of the gods" is taken as finite creatures of theone eternal and unbegotten God, then a semblance of monotheism maybe retained. If, however, the supreme God (Allah) is just one superior Godamong the other finite gods, then Farrakhan's view reduces to henothe-ism, a form of polytheism such as the Greeks had in Zeus. Lacking a sys-tematic theology or metaphysic, Farrakhan does not provide the meansto frame a coherent view of God in terms of the traditional categories.

3. Ibid.4. Ibid.

GLOSSARY

Allah: Muslim name for God.

Abu Bakr: A rich and respected merchant of Mecca, one of the first converts toIslam, and a close friend and companion of Muhammad. According to the Sunnishe was the first Muslim Caliph.

A.H. (After Hijrah), abbreviation for the years in Muslim calendar after the flightof Muhammad (in 622 A.D.); used to divide time, as A.D. is for Christians.

Adhan: Daily call to prayer by the muessin from the mosque.

Ahad: The oneness of God; the negation of any other number. The denial thatGod has any partner or companion associated with him.

Ali: The son of Abu Talib, the first cousin of Muhammad, who married Fatimah,the youngest daughter of the Prophet. He is recognized by Shi'ite Muslims as thetrue successor of Muhammad, from whom come the succession of Imams. He isthe fourth Caliph according to the Sunnis.

Alms: (See Sadaga.)

Aqida: A statement of religious belief, a creedal affirmation.

Ayat: A verse of the Qur'an.

'Ayisha: The third wife of Muhammad and daughter of Abu Bakr.

Bahira: A Nestorian monk who lived in Basrah on the caravan routes and was astrong influence on Muhammad.

Baraka: A blessing.

Bismillah: An Arabic phrase meaning "In the Name of Allah."

Caliph (Khaliph): Title of the spiritual and political leader who took over afterMuhammad's death.

Deen: Muslim religious practice, such as, reciting the creed, praying, fasting, andgiving alms, as distinct from a belief (iman).

Dajjal: Name for anti-Christ who will appear at end of time.

Fatima: The daughter of Muhammad by his first wife.

Fatwa: A religious/legal judgment.

337

338 Glossary

Five Pillars: The chief religious duties of Muslims, namely, to recite the creed(shahadah); to pray (salat); to fast (sawm); to give alms (zakat); to make the pil-grimage (hajj)to Mecca at least once in their lifetime.

Fatwa: An expert legal opinion of Qur'anic law.

Hadith: Literally, a story; an oral tradition later written down of what the prophetsupposedly said (sunna), did, or approved of—something said or done in hispresence.

Hafiz: One who memorizes the Qur'an, a professional reciter.

Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca; one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Hijrah: Muhammad's flight from Mecca to Medina in A.D. 622, thus the date usedby Muslims to divide time before and after, as Christians use B.C. and A.D.

Habit': An original monotheist, such as Abraham, who holds a prominent posi-tion among the prophets.

Huri (pl. hur'in): A damsel or maiden in Paradise.

Ibidat: Devotional worship involving performing one's primary duties and gooddeeds.

Iblis (from diabolos): A Qur'anic name for Satan.

Ijma: Consensus of Muslim legal scholars introduced in the eighth century tostandardize legal theory and practice, as opposed to ijtihad ("to endeavor" or"exert effort"), the individual thought of the earlier period.

Ijtihad: Private opinion, as opposed to ijma, or consensus held by Muslimscholars.

Imam: A leader; a person considered by Sunni Muslims to be an authority in Is-lamic law and theology. A kind of Muslim pope in Shi'ite Islam. Shi'ites accept thesuccession of Imams. After the twelfth century the imam went into hiding whenthe source of authority was transferred to the ulama, who were considered col-lectively to be the representatives of the hidden Imam.

Iman: A Muslim belief, such as, in God, angels, prophets, Scriptures, and finaljudgment, as distinguished from Muslim practices (deen).

Ijaz: Miraculousness (see mujiza).

Injil: The New Testament Gospels as originally revealed by God, but not, as manyMuslims believe, the subsequently corrupted text known as the New Testamentby Christians.

Isa: Arabic word for Jesus.

Islam: The religion revealed to Muhammad, meaning "submission" (to the willof Allah).

Ishmael: The first son of Abraham by his wife's handmaid, Hagar. Muslims be-lieve Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son of God's promise to Abraham.

Isma: Preservation, in particular, the preservation of the prophets from all sin orat least from all major sins; their impeccability.

Glossary 339

Isnad: A chain of authorities through whom a tradition has been handed downfrom the days of Muhammad.

Jihad: Sacred struggle with word or sword in the cause of Allah; a holy war.

Jinn: Spirits created by God, some good and others evil.

Jizyah: Tax paid by Jews and Christians to Muslim rulers, as opposed to paganswho were forced either to accept Islam or die.

Ka'ba: A cubical stone building in the court of the mosque at Mecca that is calledthe "I louse of God," toward which Muslims turn in prayer. This building containsthe black stone supposedly given by Adam to Gabriel and used by Abraham whoallegedly built the Ka'ba with his son Ishmael. This black stone has been kissedby Muhammad and Muslims since his time.

Khadija: Muhammad's first wife and first to believe that his message was fromGod.

Khalifa: God's trustee on earth (i.e., man).

Kafir: An unbeliever; the opposite of a believer, mumin.Kufr: Infidelity or apostasy.

Kalam: Speech. It is used of the Word of God, and later of scholastic theology thatdiscussed theology rationally.

Koran: (See Qur'an.)

Mahdi: "The guided one," or coming world leader of righteousness. Sunnis waitfor the first one to appear and Shi'ites believe the last Imma, who disappeared inA.D. 874, will someday reappear as the Mandi.

Mansukh: The abrogation of an earlier revelation (see Nasikh).

Mecca: The birthplace of Muhammad located in Saudi Arabia, considered themost holy city by Islam. It must be visited at least once in a lifetime by all Muslimswho are physically and financially able.

Medina: The second most holy city of Islam (after Mecca), previously namedYathrib, where Muhammad fled in A.D. 622 (see Hijrah).

Minaret: Tower at a mosque from which the call to prayer is made.Miraj: Ladder or way of ascent; the Ascension of Muhammad into heaven.Mosque: Building in which Muslims meet regularly for prayer on Friday and atother times.

Muhammad: The founder of Islam, born around A.D. 570 and died A.D. 632. He isconsidered by the Muslims to be the last and final prophet of God through whomGod gave the revelations in the Qur'an.

Mujahidin: Muslims who fight in holy wars (see Jihad).

Mujiza: A special miracle granted to a prophet in confirmation of his mission.

Mumin: A believer in contrast to an unbeliever (see kafir).

Muslim: Literally, "one who submits" (to God), a follower of Muhammad.

340 Glossary

Muessin: Person who does the call to prayer five times daily from the mosque.

Nabi: A prophet sent by God with his message.

Namaz: Prayers. A word commonly used in India for the daily salat.

Nasikh: That which abrogates, as mansukh is that which is abrogated.

Omar (Umar): According to Sunni teaching, the second Caliph and principal ad-visor to the first Caliph, Abu Bakr.

Pbuh: Literally, "peace be upon him." A phrase of blessing used by Muslimswhenever they refer to a prophet.

Qadar: The determination of all things by God, his decree of good and evil.

Qibla: The point Muslims face in prayer, toward Mecca.

Qur'an (Koran): Believed by Muslims to be the full and final revelation of God tomankind, conveyed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel over a twenty-three-yearperiod and corresponding perfectly to the eternal original in heaven.

Ramadan: The ninth month of the Muslim lunar year now devoted to fasting,when the Qur'an was supposedly brought down to the first heaven.

Rasul: An apostle, one who brings a message or revelation from God. Muslim tra-dition lists 124,000 prophets. But the most prominent prophets are five (or six):Muhammad (the Apostle of God), Noah (the Preacher of God), Abraham (theFriend of God), Moses (the Speaker with God), and Jesus (the Word of God). Somealso include Adam (the Chosen of God) as the sixth person in the list. Muhammadis believed to be the last and final prophet with the full and final revelation of Godin the Qur'an, the "seal of all the prophets."

Sadaqa: Charity, almsgiving to the poor and needy. Muslims are obligated to giveone fortieth (2.5 percent) of their income in alms.

Salam: Peace; a greeting of peace.

Salat: Prescribed five daily prayers, one of the Five Pillars of Islamic faith. Mus-lims are required to say 17 complete prayers each day. They may pray individu-ally or collectively. On Friday at noon Muslims are required to gather at theMosque to pray.

Shahadah: Literally, "to hear witness," which is done by reciting the creed,"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger." Saying this sin-cerely is all that is necessary to become a Muslim.

Shahid: A witness, and then a martyr who has horn witness by his death.

Shirk: Association, in particular the association of any other with God, so as toimpugn his absolute uniqueness.

Shi'ites: The major Islamic sect that believes, in contrast to Sunnis, that Muham-mad's son-in-law, Ali, was the true successor to Muhammad in the leadership ofthe Islamic community.

Sirat [or Seerat] : Literally, the bridge over hell. Metaphorically, the narrow pathto heaven.

Glossary 341

Suffis : The mystical wing of Islam that renounces worldly attachments, sees Godin all things, and strive for union of their beings with God's. In contrast to ortho-dox Islamic monotheism (God created all), they tend toward pantheism (God isall). Some have virtually deified Muhammad, something considered anathemaby orthodox Muslims.

Sunna: Written Islamic tradition about Muhammad's conduct, considered au-thoritative by Sunni Muslims.

Sunnis: The main body of Islam that comprizes about 80 percent of all Muslimswho, in contrast to the Shi'ites, believe that the true line of succession from Mu-hammad is found in the four Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, and Ali.

Sura (Surah, Surat): A chapter in the Qur'an of which there are a total of 114.

Tabdil: Literally "change," used especially of a textual change or corruption inthe Bible.

Tafsir: A commentary on the Qur'an.

Taghyr: Literally "changed or forged," sometimes used of a corruption of the bib-lical text (see also tabdil).

Tahrif: The Islamic doctrine that the original text of the Bible has been corrupted.

Takbir: Praising God by saying "God is great" (Allahu akbar).

Taqdir: God's subjection of all mankind and all history.

Taqwa: A pious or virtuous character.

Tawhid: Unity, used especially with regard to God's absolute oneness.

Tawrat: Jewish Torah or Law of Moses.

Ulama: The principles that Muslim scholars arrived at by consensus, consideredauthoritative by Sunnis; those learned in religious matters (scholars).

Umar: An early convert to Islam and a devoted follower of Muhammad. The sec-ond Muslim Caliph.

Uthman: Another early convert to Islam and the third Muslim Caliph.

Wahid: The One, Same God for all. Sometimes used interchangeably with Ahad.

Zabur: Original Psalms of David preserved in corrupted form in the Old Testa-ment Book of Psalms.

Zakat: A religious offering of a devout Muslim that is supposed to total one forti-eth of his income (2.5 percent), given primarily to the poor and needy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdalati, Hammudah. Islam in Focus. Indianapolis: American Trust Publica-tions, 1975.

Abdul-Haqq, Abdiyah Akbar. Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim. Minneapolis:Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1980.

Ajijola, Alhaj A. D. The Essence of Faith in Islam. Lahore, Pakistan: Islamic Publi-cations, Ltd., 1978.

Akhtar, Shabbir. A Faith for All Seasons. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 1990.Al-Faruqi. Christian Mission and Islamic Da'wah: Proceedings of the Chambesy

Dialogue Consultation. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982.

Al-Faruqi, lsma'il R. Islam. Niles, Ill.: Argus Communications, 1984.Ali, A. Yusuf. The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary. Damascus: Ouloom

AlQur'an, 1934.Ali, Maulana Muhammad. Muhammad and Christ. Lahore: The Ahmadiyya An-

juman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam, 1921.Anderson, Norman. The World's Religions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Christianity and World Religions. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984.. Islam in the Modern World. Leicester: Apollos, 1990.

Andrae, Tor. Mohammed: The Man and His Faith. rev. ed. New York: Harper &Row, 1955.

Archer, John Clark. Mystical Elements in Mohammed. New Haven: Yale Univer-sity Press, 1924.

Ata ur-Rahim, Muhammad. Jesus, A Prophet of Islam. New York: Diwan Press,n.d.

Al-Baqillani, Miracle and Magic. Edited by Richard J. McCarthy. Place de I'Etoile:Librairie Orientale, n.d.

Bell, Richard. The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment. London: FrankCass & Co., Ltd., 1968.

Bhatia, H. S. Studies in Islamic Law, Religion and Society. New Delhi: Deep &Deep Publications, 1989.

Bucaille, Maurice. The Bible, the Qur'an and Science. Delhi: Taj Company, 1988edition.

343

344 Bibliography

Buckner, Jerry. "Witnessing to the Nation of Islam." Christian Research Journal20, no. 3 (Jan.-Mar. 1998), 40-41.

Budd, Jack. Studies on Islam: A Simple Outline of the Islamic Faith. Red Sea Mis-sion Team, n.d.

Bukhari. The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari. Translated by Mu-hammad Muhsin Khan. Al-Medina: Islamic University. 10 vols.

Chishti, Yousuf Saleem. What is Christianity: Being a Critical Examination ofFundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith. Karachi, Pakistan: World Fed-eration of Islamic Missions, 1970.

Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. London: George Allen & Unwin,

1985.Muhammad and the Christian. London: Darton, Longman and Todd,

1984.Dashti, Mi. Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad.

London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.Dawud, Abdu'l-Ahad. Muhammad in the Bible. 2d ed. Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka

Antara, 1979.Deedat, Ahmed. Is the Bible God's Word? South Africa, 6th printing, 1987.Dermenghem, Emile. Muhammad and the Islamic Tradition. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1974.Doi, A. R. I. "The Status of Prophet Jesus in Islam." Muslim (Magazine) World

League (June 1982).Farrakhan, Louis. "The Name of the True Religion?" The Final Call, February 17,

1998, 20-21.Gibb, H. A. R. Mohammedanism: An Historical Survey. London: Oxford Universi-

ty Press, 1949.Gibb, H. A. R., and J. H. Kramers. Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press, 1953.Gilchrist, John. The Textual History of the Qur'an and the Bible. Villach, Austria:

Light of Life, 1988.. Jam'al-Qur'an: The Codification of the Qur'an Text. Benoni: South Africa:

Jesus to the Muslims, 1989.. The Crucifixion of Christ: A Fact not Fiction. Villach, Austria: Light of Life,

n.d.

Goldziher, lgnaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Translated by An-dras and Ruth Hamori. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Gudel, Joseph P. To Every Muslim An Answer. Unpublished thesis at SimonGreenleaf School of Law, 1982.

Habermas, Gary. Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1984.

Bibliography 345

Hameedullah, Muhammad. Introduction to Islam. Paris: Centre Culturel Is-lamique, 1969.

Haneef, Suzanne. What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims. Chi-cago: Kazi Publications, 1979.

Haykal, Muhammad Husayn. The Life of Muhammad. Indianapolis: North Amer-ican Trust Publications, 1976.

Hemer, Colin. Acts in the Setting of Hellenic History. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-brauns, 1990.

Ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah, (The Life of Muhammad). Translated by A. Guil-laume. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Ibn Taymiyya. A Muslim Theologian's Response to Christianity. Edited and trans-lated by Thomas F. Michel. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1984.

Jeffery, Arthur. Islam: Muhammad and His Religion. Indianapolis and New York:The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1958.

. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur 'an. Lahore: Al-Biruni, 1977.

. Materials For the History of the Text of the Qur'an. New York: AMS Press,Inc., 1975.

Kateregga, Badru D., and David W. Shenk. Islam and Christianity: A Muslim anda Christian in Dialogue. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Kenyon, Frederic. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. 4th ed. New York:Harper, 1958.

Khalifa, Rashad. Quran: Visual Presentation of the Miracle. Karachi: Haider AliMuljee "Taha," 1987.

Khalifa, Rashad. The Cornputor Speaks: God's Message to the World. Tuscon:Mosque of Tuscon, 1981.

Khouj, Abdullah Muhammad. The End of the Journey. Washington, D.C.: The Is-lamic Center, 1988.

Kochler, Hans. The Concept of Monotheism in Islam and Christianity. Wien: Wil-helm Braumuller, 1982.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity: Beginning to 1500. San Fran-cisco: Harper, 1975.

Linnemann, Eta. Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?Translated by Robert Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of theFirst Three Gospels. Translated by Robert Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker,1992.

Mahmud, Abdel Haleem. The Creed of Islam. World of Islam Festival Trust, 1978.McDowell, Josh, and John Gilchrist. The Islam Debate. San Bernardino, CA:

Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1983.Mufassir, Sulaiman Shahid. Jesus, A Prophet of Islam. Indianapolis: American

Trust Publications, 1980.Nash, Ronald. The Gospel and the Greeks. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1992.

346 Bibliography

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Ideals and Realities of Islam. London: George Allen & Un-win, Ltd., 1975.

Nazir-Ali, Michael. Frontiers in Muslim-Christian Encounter. Oxford: RegnumBooks, 1987.

Nehls, Gerhard. Christians Ask Muslims. SIM International Life Challenge, 1987.New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 22. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1985.Niazi, Kausar. Creation of Man. Karachi: Ferozsons, Ltd., 1975.Paley, William. Evidences of Christianity. London: 1851.Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur'an. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.Parshall, Phil. Beyond the Mosque. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

. Bridges to Islam. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.Pfander, C. G. The Mizanu'l Haqq. Austria: Light of Life, 1986.Quasem, Muhammad Abul. Salvation of the Soul and Islamic Devotions. London:

Kegan Paul International, 1983.Ratzinger, Joseph. Introduction to Christianity. Translated by J. R. Foster. New

York: The Seabury Press, 1979.Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur'an. Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980.

. Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.Rauf, Muhammad Abdul. Islam: Creed and Worship. Washington, D.C.: The Is-

lamic Center, 1974.Rippin, Andrew, and Jan Knappert. Textual Sources for the Study of Islam.

Manchester: University Press, 1986.Schimmel, Annemarie. And Muhammad Is His Messenger. Chapel Hill and Lon-

don: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985.Schimmel, Annemarie, and Abdoldjavad Falaturi. We Believe In One God. New

York: Seabury Press, 1979.Sell, Rev. Edward. The Faith of Islam. London: Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge, n.d.Shehadi, Fadlou. Ghazali's Unique Unknowable God. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Ox-

ford: Clarendon Press, 1963.Shorrosh, Dr. Anis A. Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View of Islam. Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 1988.Slomp, J. "The Gospel in Dispute," Islamochristiana. Rome: Pontificio Instituto

de Saudi Arabia, 1978, vol. 4.Smith, Jane I., and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad. The Islamic Understanding of Death

and Resurrection. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981.Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984.Stanton, H. U. Weitbrecht. The Teaching of the Qur'an. New York: Biblo and Tan-

nen, 1969.'l'isdall, W. St. Clair. The Source of Islam. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.

Bibliography 347

Torrey, Charles Cutter. The Jewish Foundation of Islam. New York: KTAV Publish-ing House, Inc., 1967.

Understanding Islam and the Muslims: The Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washing-ton, D.C., n.d.

Waddy, Charis. The Muslim Mind. London and New York: Longman, 1976.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.. Islam and Christianity Today: A Contribution to Dialogue. London: Rout-

ledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.. Muhammad's Mecca. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1988.. Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,

1970.Welch, Alford T., and Pierre Cachia. Islam: Past Influence and Present Challenge.

State University of New York Press, 1979.Williams, John Alden. Islam. New York: George Braziller, 1962.Woodberry, J. Dudley, ed. Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road. Mon-

rovia, Calif.: MARC Publications, 1989.Yusseff, M. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Barnabas and the New Testa-

ment. Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1985.Zwemer, Samuel M. The Moslem Doctrine of God. American Tract Society, 1905.

The Muslim Christ. Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson and Fer-rier, 1912.

SUGGESTED READING

Abdul-Haqq, Abdiyah Akbar. Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim. Minneapolis:Bethany Fellowship, 1980.

Anderson, Norman. Islam in the Modern World. Leicester: Apollos, 1990.

Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

. Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. London: George Allen & Unwin,1985.

Dashti, All. Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad.London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.

Kateregga, Badru D. Islam and Christianity: A Muslim and a Christian in Dia-logue. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

McDowell, Josh, and John Gilchrist. The Islam Debate. San Bernardino, Calif.:Here ' s Life, 1983.

Morey, Robert. An Analysis of the Hadith. Austin, Tex.: Research Education Foun-dation, 1992.

Nazir-Ali, Michael. Frontiers in Muslim-Christian Encouter. Oxford: Regnum,1987.

Nehls, Gerhard. Christians Ask Muslims. SIM International Life Challenge, 1987.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qu'ran. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Parshall, Phil. Beyond the Mosque. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

. Bridges to Islam. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.

Pfander, C. G. The Mizanu'l Haqq. Austria: Light of Life, 1986.

Shorrosh, Anis A. Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View of Islam. Nashville: Th-omas Nelson, 1988.

Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984.

Tisdall, W. St. Clair. The Source of Islam. Edinburgh: 'F. & T. Clark, n.d.

Woodberry, J. Dudley, ed. Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road. Mon-rovia, Calif.: MARC Publications, 1989.

Zwemer, Samuel M. The Moslem Doctrine of God. American Tract Society, 1905.

. The Muslim Christ. Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson and Fer-rier, 1912.

349

INDEX OF QUR 'ANIC SURAS

1:1ff 1841:2 2311:3 25, 1371:5 231

2:2 102, 1842:2-4 100, 1842:23 105, 1862:25 125, 129, 2072:29 25, 34-352:30 402:31-34 422:34 392:35 41, 422:37 24, 292:38-39 462:42 59, 2142:48 87, 1202:54 292:62 58, 1292:73 1952:75 2182:78 59, 2142:85 59, 2142:87 682:92 2542:97-98 372:106 98, 201-22:111-12 1292:117 24, 1372:118 155, 174, 1912:132 572:136 572:142 772:143 24, 25

2:143-44 992:151 186, 1912:159 2232:160 292:172 1922:173 292:177 36, 192-932:179ff 992:182 292:183 992:187 292:190-93 3202:191 992:192 292:199 292:207 1272:210 2542:216 3202:216-17 782:217 1802:218 292:224 3202:225 242:225-26 29, 1372:228 1772:235 25, 292:244 78, 178, 1792:245-46 252:248 2542:253 186, 1912:254 872:255 22, 87, 1362:255-56 252:256 2022:267 24, 25

2:268 272:270 24, 252:271 27

3:2 263:7 100, 1843:8 273:9 24, 1373:12 1883:19 1953:26 26, 27, 1373:31 138, 1413:32 29, 1413:37-45 643:37-47 2483:55 68, 283, 286, 2923:59 64, 1933:67 563:69 1953:71 59, 2143:78 59, 2143:85 58, 1293:89 773:108 186, 1913:110 593:123 1653:157-58 129, 167, 200,

293, 3203:169 3203:170-71 167, 2003:181-84 162-63, 164,

169, 2623:183 155, 163, 172, 1743:185 109, 110, 2663:194-95 78

351

352

3:195 129,178-79,320

Index of Qur'anic Surds

5:17 282 7:12-18 433:198 123 5:19 306 7:20-25 43-44

5:35 163 7:40 1114:3 175-76 5:36 167, 200, 207, 320 7:54 2024:6-7 24,137 5:36-38 179 7:106-8 163, 172-734:28-32 47, 285 5:39 29 7:116-19 163,1724:31 48 5:46 217 7:118 1734:34 177 5:46-47 65 7:156 29, 138, 1954:40 128 5:50 59,213 7:157 83, 106, 153, 187,4:45 27, 122 5:54 58,321 1954:46 59, 214 5:67 217 7:178-79 30, 1474:47 27 5:69 193,217 7:199 994:57 123, 125, 129, 207 5:71 29,2174:63-65 172 5:72 65 8:12 1794:74-75 320 5:75 62, 64, 129, 216, 306 8:12-17 3214:80 83, 97 5:78 64,217 8:17 79, 1654:82 107, 189 5:85 58 8:48 434:85 26 5:110 248 8:50 1104:87 26 5:113 64, 172 8:59-60 3214:89 320 5:114 57 8:65 79, 166, 174, 3214:95 179,320 5:117 254:95-96 78, 129 5:119 264 9:5 178, 202, 207, 3214:99-100 25 9:14 3214:101 320 6:8-9 169, 172 9:29 58, 77, 178, 202, 2074:116 20-21, 136, 268, 6:12 29, 138, 140 9:30 59

285 6:18 24,146 9:36 784:120 40 6:1.9 100,184 9:51 30, 1474:122 125 6:34 202 9:72 122-234:125 77 6:35 163 9:74-75 264:150-51 129 6:37 163, 173 9:117-18 294:152 129 6:50 85-864:153 169, 172 6:51 120 10:3 344:155-61 58 6:54 29 10:28-29 264:157-58 282,291 6:61 266 10:37 100, 103, 106, 185,4:157-59 66, 68 6:83 25 1864:157 2924:158 64,2484:160 1924:163-65 554:169-71 634:171 217,2644:173 125

5:4 915:10 1255:12 1655:14 59

6:84-86 55, 1726:89 24, 59, 776:91 246:93 1106:96-100 206:102 27, 1376:115 25, 1376:128 1246:160 128

7:8-9 1637:10 48

10:38 105, 186, 18710:47 5310:52 12410:64 20210:68 6410:94 59, 213, 217, 291,

29310:99-100 202

11:9-13 47,28511:57 2411:60 24

Index of Qur'anic Suras 353

11:61 2611:64 2611:73 2611:76 2611:87 2511:89 2511:90 27, 13711:92 27, 13711:106 12211:107 124

12:1—2 100, 18412:64 53, 137

13:9—10 26, 13713:11—12 2713:14 2013:16 13713:16—17 24, 26, 2713:19 2613:26 2413:29 12513:39 54, 98, 100, 139,

184

14:13—14 1 8814:16—17 12214:17 29014:22 4314:23 12514:34—37 47, 28514:42—43 2614:44 8314:50 122

15:9 18715:23 2715:26 4015:26—27 38

16:3—22 2016:4 47, 28516:36 53, 15116:61 47, 28516:89 11916:101 9816:103 161

17:1 25, 16417:13 20217:13—14 11917:44 3417:70 4817:86 8617:88 105, 106, 18617:90 19317:90—92 17217:90—93 163, 17417:90—95 17217:99 2517:99—101 13717:101 2517:102 16317:105 15517:106 92

18:1 100, 18418:29 20218:49 11918:50 3918:86 20518:92—98 11618:107 125

19:15 29219:16—21. 64, 24819:21 6319:29—31 64, 24819:33 68, 286, 29219:34—35 6319:35 64, 199, 24919:40—41 2719:94 26

20:15 11420:22—23 16320:50 2620:52 2620:66 19220:73 2420:75 2420:111 2420:113 100, 18420:114 2420:122 29

21:16 4921:22 2021:25 2021:47—48 27, 13721:96—97 11621:103 11821:107 97

22:19—21 12222:14 12522:23 12522:36 4822:39—40 7822:51 74, 16122:54 2722:58—59 129, 167, 200,

29322:62 26

23:14 20423:15—16 11023:45 163, 17223:102—3 119, 12723:119 20

24:2 198, 20124:35 27

25:4ff 16125:6 100, 18425:11—14 29025:12—13 12225:15 12325:32 92, 15525:51 14125:61 3425:70 29, 128

26:210—11 100

27:40 2627:60—65 2027:80 113

28:48 19928:86—87 186, 19128:88 117

354 Index of Qur'anic Surds

29:27 15329:41 2029:46 5829:50 86

30:2-4 107, 167, 188, 20030:29 2030:30 45, 4830:47 27, 13730:50 26

32:4 35, 202, 23032:5 11832:6 19932:9 4032:13 30, 147-4832:14 124

33:21 83, 9733:37 17633:40 15233:50 17633:51 17633:52 176-7733:56 88, 9733:63 11433:72 47, 48, 285

34:18 19934:26 2534:43 74

35:5 40

36:7-10 30, 14736:65 11936:66 12036:78-79 117

37:18-21 11837:23-24 12037:43 12237:45-47 12237:48 12237:62-68 12137:94 32, 14937:102-7 283

38:22 19938:71-77 39

39:1-2 100, 18439:41 100, 18439:53 12739:61 12739:65 2039:68 117

40:3 2940:15 53-54, 15140:48 2440:48-51 13740:51 2440:55 17840:78 55

41:2-3 100, 18441:6 7541:9 35, 23041:9-12 20241:12 3541:28 12441:53 19, 188

42:19 26

43:3-4 101, 139, 18443:40 5443:43-44 100, 18443:74 124

44:54 122

45:3-4 1945:16-17 59

46:29ff 3846:33 117

47:3 2547:4 178, 32147:19 178

48:2 17848:11 25

49:9 19249:13 49

50:16 2950:28 2650:34 12350:38 35

51:20-21 1951:50-52 2051:56 38, 4951:57-58 2551:58 26

52:20 12252:24 12252:28 24

53:19-23 7453:21-23 161, 198, 20153:23 161

54:1-2 163-6454:42 26

55:1-2 100, 184s55:3-7 3455:26-27 11755:27 2455:44 12255:72 122

56:3 2456:17 12256:22 12256:42-43 12256:83 110

57:3 2457:16 59

59:7 8459:22-24 2359:23 24, 25, 26, 27, 13759:24 24, 26

Index of Qur'anic Surds 355

61:4 32261:6 157-58

62:1 25, 13762:2 19562:5 59

64:17 25

66:2 180

67:7-8 122

68:42 118

69:13-16 11769:18-31 119-2069:30-32 122

74:1 19274:9-10 11874:11 27, 13774:19 122

75:35-39 118

78:23 12478:40 118

79:1-2 110

80:33-42 118

81:1-3 114-1581:6 114-1581:14 114-15

82:1-5 114

89:2 167-68, 20189:27-30 266

91:1ff 195

94:1-2 16694:8 166

96:1-5 7296:6 47, 285

97:1ff 194

98:6 77

105:1ff 194

109:1ff 194

111:lff 19470:4 118

71:10 25

72:1-2 3872:3 6472:11 38

85:13 2685:21-22 100, 139, 184 112:1ff 135s

112:2 25s87:9 96

89:1-5 188

INDEX OF PERSONS

Aaron, 55, 164, 172Abbas, Abdullah Ibn, 19, 42Abel, 317Abd-Allah (Abdullah), 15, 70Abdalati, Hammudah, 35, 45, 50, 53-

54, 86, 103-104, 124, 151, 174, 178,233-34, 282, 288-89, 290, 291-92

Abduh, Muhammad, 60, 214Abdul-Haqq, Abdiyah Akbar, 32, 48,

63, 89, 101, 102, 128, 149, 183, 217,287, 291, 297

Abraham, 55-57, 63, 777, 98, 121, 152-53, 164, 172, 226, 228-29, 250, 255,283, 293, 296, 317

Adam, 40-48, 55-57, 64, 88, 121, 148,175, 225, 227, 229, 284

' Afk, Abu, 180Africanus, Julius, 236Ahmad, 88-89, 157-58Ahmad, Mirza Ghulam, 299Ahmad, Mahmud, 94A ' isha, 111-12, 160, 164, 198Ajijola, Alhaj A.D., 17, 20, 36, 37, 40, 45,

53, 55, 60, 69, 83, 102-104, 107-108,136, 184-86, 190-91, 214-15, 233,268

Aland, Kurt and Barbara, 310Albright, William F., 242All, 73, 177, 195, 199, 295-96Ali, Maulana Muhammad, 187, 188-89Alqamah, 128Amina, 70Anas, 112, 169Anderson, Sir Norman, 68-69, 96, 143,

311, 316

Andrae, Tor, 70-71, 72, 74, 77, 81, 96,159, 181

Anselm, 290Antes, Peter, 62, 216Aquinas, Thomas, 8, 144, 149Arberry, 205Archer, Gleason, 231Arethas, 171(Al-) As, Sa'id bin, 93(Al-) Ashraf, Ka'b Ibn, 179Askar, Hasan, 124Augustine, St., 145, 275(Al-) Awwam, al-Zubayr b., 324

Baagil, H. M., 267Badawi, Jamal, 322Baha'u'llah, 299Bakr, Abu, 31, 73, 76, 92, 197, 280Balic, Smail, 63, 268(Al-) Baqillani, 54-55, 105, 106, 185, 187Barbet, Dr. Pierre, 235Bar-Serapion, Mara, 236Basilides, 287(al-) Basri, Hassan, 128Beidhawi, 16Beisner, E. Calvin, 315Bell, Richard, 18, 58, 218, 279bin Laden, Osama, 299, 328Bistami, Bayezid, 84Blomberg, Craig, 313Bruce, F. F., 236, 238, 286-288, 313, 315Buber, Martin, 145Bucaille, Maurice, 16, 93, 107, 189,

203-205, 221-25, 226-28, 230Buckner, Jerry, 334

357

358 Index ofPersons

Buhaira, 71(Al-) Bukhari, 19, 40, 65, 73, 83, 92-93,

115, 117, 148, 168, 170, 177, 326Bultmann, Rudolph, 219Burrows, Millar, 247

Cain, 317Carlyle, 194Christ (Jesus), 62-69, 156, 233-62,

passimChisti, Yousuf Saleem, 314-15Constantine, 208-209

Damiri, Kamal ud Din ad, 86, 174Dashti, Ali, 71, 89, 94, 101, 162, 170,

178, 181, 192-93, 317David, 55-56, 61, 172, 175, 229-30, 255,

259, 266Dawud, Abdul Ahad, 102, 152-53, 156,

264-65Deedat, Ahmad, 64, 190, 234, 242, 264-

265, 309-310, 312Deen, Wallace, 331-32Denton, Michael, 223Dermenghem, Emile, 60, 214, 297(al-) Din Rumi, Jalal, 298Doi, A. R. I., 280, 284-85, 287Du 'ad, Abu, 170

El-Assad, Nassir El-Din, 20, 136Enoch, 164Elias (Elijah), 55, 172, 191Elisha, 55, 172Eve, 40-45, 175Ezra (Uzair), 55, 59

Falaturi, Abdoldjavad, 30, 34, 62, 63,82, 152, 268, 298

(al-) Farabi, 297Farrakhan, Louis, 299, 331-32, 334-35(al-) Faruqi, Isma'il R., 45, 57, 105, 128,

142-43, 171Feuerbach, Ludwig, 145Foreman, Mark W., 163, 191-92Foster, M. B., 203France, R. T., 313Frenacus, 287

Geisler, Norman L., 7, 144, 158, 175,178, 204, 219, 221, 231, 238-40, 243,246, 291, 310

(Al-) Ghazali, 31, 83-84, 112-113, 120-21, 128, 141-42, 148-49, 297

Gibb, H. A. R., 37Gibbon, Edward, 207Gilchrist, John, 196, 218, 306, 310-12Glueck, Nelson, 242, 247Goldziher, Ignaz, 29, 84, 95, 96, 101,

140, 146, 296, 298Gramlich, Richard, 149-50, 298Greenleaf, Simon, 231, 242Gudel, Joseph, 87-88, 102, 167, 173,

174, 179, 185-86, 189, 196, 200Guillaume, A., 311, 323

Habermas, Gary, 287, 313, 315Haddad, Y., 109-113, 116-18, 120-124(Al-) Hallaj, 298Hameedullah, Muhammad, 21, 130Haneef, Suzanne, 106-107, 187-88,

189, 303, 306Hanifa, Abu, 102, 183Harrison, R. K., 220Haykal, Hussein, 68, 71-72, 74-75, 79-

80, 105, 106, 159-62, 166, 174-81,209, 283-84

Hazm, Ibn, 61, 193, 215Hisham, 'Abdur-Rahman bin Harith

bin, 93, 170, 323Hoehner, Harold W., 255Holy Spirit, 37, 158, 232, 253, 255, 271-

75Homer, 163, 192, 196, 238-40Howe, Thomas, 153, 175, 221-22, 231,

246Hudhaifa, 93

H ume, David, 245-47, 260-61Huraira, Abu, 16, 23, 127Husain, Muhammad Kamil, 205Husayn, 295-96

Ibish, Yusuf K., 99, 104, 139, 184, 276,297

Ignatius, 237Igbal, 82-83

Index of Persons 359

Isaac, 55, 57, 153, 172Isaiah, 156-57, 173, 222, 250-51, 253,

283Isfahani, Raghib, 36Ishaq, Ibn, 71, 72-73, 164, 170, 323Ismail (Ishmael), 55, 57, 96, 98, 153, 172

Jacob, 55, 57, 153, 172, 228-30Jeffery, Arthur, 17, 23, 30-31, 53, 62, 72,

75, 84, 94, 98, 105-106, 197-98, 214,316-17

Job, 55, 172, 223Joel, 250John (apostle), 237, 241, 243, 246, 257,

280John the Baptist, 55, 156-57, 164, 172,

292Johnson, Phillip E., 223Jomier, J., 304, 307Jonah, 55, 172, 260Jones, L. Bevan, 199, 304Joseph, 55-56, 164, 172Josephus, Flavius, 236, 288Joshua, 154-55Judas (Iscariot), 67, 282, 286-87, 304,

312

Ka ' b, 179, 197Kant, Immanuel, 241Kateregga, Badru D., 23, 36, 39-42, 44,

47-48, 50, 52, 54-55, 64, 83, 93, 94,103, 124, 126-27, 130, 151, 185

(Al-) Kathir, Ibn, 47Kelly, J. N. D., 315Kenyon, Sir Fredrick, 241Khadija, 71, 73, 75, 159Khalaf, Ubai ibn, 165Khaldun, Ibn, 53, 61, 88, 116, 215Khalid, 179Khalifa, Rashad, 107, 190Khan, Muhammad Muhsin, 130, 326Khan, Sayyid Ahmad, 84, 291(al-) Khattab, Umar b. See Umar.Khayyam, Omar, 150(ol-) Khayyat, 193Khomeini, Ayatollah, 47, 82, 285Khosroes, 71

Khouj, Muhammad, 110-13, 115-17,119-20,122-23,126

(al-) Kindi, 297Knappert, Jan, 32, 36, 75, 149, 177, 186,

296Kochler, Hans, 136

Lactantius, 265(al-) Lat, 74Latourette, Kenneth Scott, 209Lawson, B. Todd, 199Lewis, C. S., 244, 254, 269Lightfoot, J. B., 287Linnemann, Eta, 219, 243-44Livy, 238-39Longsdale, 303-5Lot, 55, 172Lucas, Jerry, 206Lucian, 236Luke, 229, 241, 243, 245

Machen, J. Gresham, 315(al-) Madani, Muhammad, 23Madja, Ibn, 170Mahmud, Abdel Haleem, 20, 36, 71,

126-27, 134, 193, 268Malik, Anas bin, 93Manat, 74Mani, 194, 287Mark, 241Marshall, I. Howard, 313-14Martyr, Justin, 237, 288Marwan, Asma b., 325-26Mary, 47, 62, 64-65, 100, 229-30, 249,

258, 264, 279-80, 282, 285Mas ' ud, ibn, 197-98Matthew, 227, 229, 246(Al-) Maturidi, 102, 183McCarthy, Richard J., 55McCormick, 242McDowell, Josh, 218, 234Metzger, Bruce, 240, 310Mir, Mir Taqi, 88Mithra, 314-16Momen, Moojan, 296Montgomery, John W., 203, 242Moses, 16, 55-57, 61, 73, 75, 77, 121,

360 Index of Persons

148, 152-55, 159, 164, 172-75, 183,191, 213-15, 219, 226, 249, 252, 290

Muayt, Uqbah ibn Abu, 179-80Mufassir, Sulaiman Shahid, 217, 234,

282Muhammad (the prophet), 70-90,

151-82, passimMuhammad, Elijah, 299, 331-32, 334Muhammad, W. Fard, 334Muir, W., 217Munabih, Wahab. B., 286-87(al-) Muslim, 31, 83, 170(Al-) Mutawakkil, 101Muttalib, Abd al-, 70

(Al) Nasa, 170(Al-) Nasafi, 32Nash, Ronald, 315-16Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, 100, 102, 104,

123(on-) Nassam, Ebrahim, 193Nathan, 229-30Nazir-Ali, Michael, 47, 61, 89-90, 92,

145, 215, 264, 285, 289Nehls, Gerhard, 32, 106, 149, 170, 186,

202, 206Niazi, Kausar, 37-38, 40, 42, 44-47Nicodemus, 249, 258Nix, William E., 158, 219, 238-40, 243,

291, 310Noah, 55-56, 121, 172, 226, 227-29Noldeke, 96Noss, John B., 207

Paley, William, 208Parrinder, Geoffrey, 55, 64-65, 67-68,

248Parshall, Phil, 297-99Paul, 48, 175, 231-32, 241, 246-47, 253-

54, 257, 259, 283-84, 290, 292, 314-16

Peter, 232, 241, 247, 257, 258-60, 280Pfander, C. G., 87, 141, 152, 164-65,

174, 192-95, 197, 198, 204, 208, 218,265

Pharaoh, 172Phlegon, 236-37

Photius, 287Pickthall, Mohammed, 92, 161, 177,

187, 205, 266Pilate, 67, 235, 236, 246, 257, 281, 286,

287-88, 307, 312Plotinus, 139, 143, 270Polycarp, 237Popper, Karl, 260Prestige, G. L., 315

Quasem, Muhammad Abul, 85, 109,125-28, 130

Queen of Sheba, 317Qurra, Abu, 171

Ragg, Luara, 304-5Rahbar, Daud, 289(ur-) Rahim, Muhammad Ata, 303-5,

312Rahman, Fazlur, 21, 28-29, 38-39, 43,

48, 54, 62, 75, 146, 205, 216, 295Ramsay, Sir William, 243-45Ratzinger, Joseph, 270-71Rauf, Muhammad, Abdul, 21, 52, 55-

56, 125-126, 151Razi, Immam, 42, 61, 215Ridah, Mohammed A. Abou, 19-20, 27Riclderbos, Herman, 315Rippin, Andrew, 32, 36, 75, 149, 177,

186, 296Robertson, A. T., 239Robinson, Bishop John, 219, 242-43,

313-14Rodkinson, Michael L., 288Rushd, Ibn, 297Rushdie, Salman, 82, 328

Sachedina, Abdulaziz, 296Sa'd, Abdollah b., 325Sa 'd, Ibn, 169-70Said, Abu, 128Sahas, Daniel J., 171Salam, Ibn, 98Sale, 165Sarh, Abdollah b. Sa'd b. Abi, 162Schaff, Philip, 239Schimmel, Annemarie, 30, 34, 62-63,

Index of Persons 361

70-71, 82, 84-86, 88-90, 97, 149, 152,268, 298

Shakespeare, 163, 192Shenk, David W., 23, 36, 39-42, 44, 47-

48, 50, 52, 54-55, 83, 93-94, 103, 124,126-27, 130, 151, 185

Sherwin-White, A. N., 313Shorrosh, Anis A., 64, 104-5, 170, 192-

93, 202, 207, 264-65(As-) Siddiq, Abu Bakr, 92Simon of Cyrene, 67, 287Sina, lbn, 297Slomp, J., 303-7Smith, Jane, 109-13, 116-18, 120-24Smith, Jay, 197Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, 82, 209Solomon, 38, 55-56, 172, 175, 229-30Sox, David, 60, 67, 307Spencer, H., 167, 200St. Clair-Tisdall, W., 167, 199-200, 317Stanton, 11. U. Weitbrecht, 23, 28, 39,

46, 92, 94-95, 98, 124, 147, 293Stoner, Peter, 256Strauss, David, 312Stroud, W., 235(al-) Subki, 121Sufyan, Abu, 79-81, 325Suyuti, Jalalu'd Din a's, 92

(Al-) Tabari, 61-62, 215-16, 286-87Tacitus, Cornelius, 236, 238-39, 287-88Taimyya, Ibn, 38, 49, 82, 104, 185, 280,

305Takle, John, 59, 63, 213Talib, Abu, 71-71, 74-75Thabit, Zayd ibn, 92-94, 196-97Thalabi, 287Thallus, 236, 288(al-) Thawri, Sufyan, 128Thomas (apostle), 251, 253, 265-66Thomas Aquinas, 8, 144, 149Thucydides, 238-39

Tiberius, Caesar, 236-37, 287-88Tilimsani, 88(Al-) Tirmidhi, 170

Umar, 31, 92, 162, 180, 198, 204, 280Umm Maktum, ibn, 178Uthman, 93-94, 167, 196-200, 311(al-) Uzza, 74, 198

Waardenburg, Jacques, 57, 61, 213,215-16

Waddy, Charts, 56, 60, 100, 104, 139,184, 214, 276, 297

Waraqah, 73, 159Washburn, Del, 206Watt, W. Montgomery, 18, 48-49, 75,

78-79, 91, 161-62, 195-98, 201Wenham, David, 313Wenharn, John, 230Whitehead, Alfred North, 203Williams, John Alden, 46, 49, 57, 75,

101-2, 183, 296-98Wilson, Clifford, 247Woodberry, J. Dudley, 46-47, 99, 205,

285

Yamani, Shaikh Ahmed Zaki, 280Yusseff, M. A., 303, 314Yusuf, Hasan ibn, 296Yusuf Ali, Abdullah, 39, 60, 64-66, 92,

107, 123, 153, 164, 166, 168, 172,179,186, 188-89, 194, 201, 205, 215-16,241, 303

Zacharias (Zakariya), 55, 172Zaid, 73Zamakhshari, 19, 193Zar, Hazrat Abu, 47(Az-) Zubair, Abdullah bin, 93(Al-) Zuhri, 96Zwemer, Samuel M., 15-20, 23, 116

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abrogation. SeeRevelation, abrogationof

Ahmadiyyas, 68, 299Alawite, 299American Muslim Mission, 332American Muslim Society. SeeAmeri-

can Muslim MissionAngels

archangelsGabriel, 11, 36-37, 72, 75, 91-92,

93, 152, 164, 166Israfil, 37, 117Izra'il, 37Michael, 37

creation of, 36-37duties of, 37, 39function of, 111, 119Munkar, 37, 111Nakir, 37, 111Satan (the Devil, Iblis), 28, 39-40, 42-

44, 65, 74, 147, 161, 198-99, 289,317, 320

Antichrist, 67, 115-16Apostles, in Islam. See Prophets

Badr, city of, 79Baha ' i, 299Bible, corruption of, 213-15Bismillah, 94

Christians, 98Creation, Muslim account of, 34-35, 51

of Adam, 40-42of angels, 36-37ofjinn, 38-39

of man, 40-41, 51of Satan, 39-40, 51

Cults. See SectsCrucifixion, of Christ. SeeJesus, death

of

Dajjal, 115-16Death, Muslim view of, 110-14, 125Devil. See SatanDruze, 299

EndtimesMuslim view of, 109-10, 114-24, 127,

279-80, 292, 296Christian view of, 250, 252

Fatwa, 82

Gehenna/Hell, 30-31, 119-24, 127,129-30

God, Christian viewattributes of, 256, 273-74, 283-84,

288-90concept of, 143-45, 233, 268-77nature of, 143-45, 146-47, 264, 268-

77prophets of. See Prophetssovereignty of, 256-57, 282-83, 290will of, 282-83

God (Allah), Muslim viewattributes of, 19-22, 27-29, 33, 96,

101-2, 125, 127, 136-38, 140-41concept of, 16-19, 96, 135-41, 143-

44, 149-50, 263-64, 268-70, 282creation by, 34-36, 38-41, 137

363

364 Index of Subjects

names of, 15, 22, 23-28, 137-38nature of, 96, 135-43, 144-45, 268-

70, 282prophets of. See Prophetsself creation, 334-35sovereignty of, 30-33, 42, 49, 51, 137-

38, 144-46, 282-83will of, 28, 31-33, 49-51, 100, 103,

121, 128, 136, 138-40, 144-50,266, 276

Gospel of Barnabas, 11, 67, 287, 303-8

Hadith, 11, 31, 83-84, 86-88, 110-16,126, 129, 146-48, 152, 162-63,168-70, 220, 280, 311, 326-28

I leaven, 121-24, 127, 293 317H ijra, 76-78Holy Spirit

Muslim view of, 37Christian view of, 271-72

Iblis. See SatanInjil (Gospel), 214Islam

attitudes toward Christians, 58-62,77, 98, 125, 129-30, 138, 161, 214

attitudes toward Jews, 58-62, 77, 98,129-30, 161, 214

attitudes toward Scripture, 59-62,91, 96, 100, 103-4, 129, 153-56,158-59, 213-32, 238, 243, 265-68,309-14

confessions and creeds of, 15, 32, 69,85, 125-26, 149

laws of (shari 'a), 84-85, 103-4, 185meaning of, 57, 73, 301monotheism of, 15, 20, 135-40, 142-

43, 268, 270names for God, 23-28, 137-38number of followers, 8, 11, 295origin of, 72-73, 76-80, 86, 90, 207-9practices of, 88, 99, 104, 126, 177,

301-2prophets of, 52-54, 56-57, 63-64theology of, 15-16, 20-22, 27-33, 36,

38-42, 44-50, 52-54, 56-58, 61-70, 77, 82-92, 95, 98, 100-103,

105, 109-31, 135-41, 144-48,213-20,278-83,285-87,289-93

violence in, 319-29

Jerusalem, 75, 77, 98-99, 156, 164, 167,188, 200, 246, 255, 259

Jesusascension of, 65, 67-68, 279, 282-83,

287, 291-93attributes of, 257-58, 262, 266, 289Christian view of, 59, 153-57, 220,

233, 248-56, 258, 262, 264-69death of, 66-69, 234-37, 245, 260,

275, 278-93, 296deity of, 62, 233, 237, 248-58, 260-68,

275, 277miracles of. See MiraclesMuslim view of, 11, 52, 56-57, 58-69,

75, 88, 90, 138, 152-53, 156, 158,172, 215-16, 233-34, 249, 262-66,278-79, 281-82, 293, 314

nature of, 47, 63-64, 248-60, 263-64,270, 275

prophethood of, 11, 52, 56-57, 63-66,69, 258

resurrection of, 233, 236-37, 241,245-48,254-55,258-62,272,279,281, 284-85, 289, 293, 315-16

return of, 67, 115-16, 157, 279, 291,293

sinlessness of, 63, 257-58, 262, 266,289, 293

teachings of, 260-62, 293titles of, 63, 250, 252

Jews, 98, 324, 328-29Jihad (Holy War), 7, 58, 78, 126, 128,

178-79, 319, 322, 327Jinn, 30, 35, 38-39, 51, 147-48, 159

Law of noncontradiction, 272

Mahdi, 116, 296, 299, 334Man

authority of, 48creation of, 40-41fall of, 43-45nature of, 45-51purpose of, 49

Index of Subjects 365

Mecca, 18, 70, 72, 74-77, 79, 81-82, 96-99, 126, 154-55, 161-62, 164, 166,197-98, 302, 322-25

Medina, 75-81, 94, 97-99, 116, 181,188, 322-25

Methodists, 11Miracles

of Jesus,64-65, 156, 168, 171-73, 191,245-48, 251, 254-55, 258-62,286,317

of Muhammad, 70, 86, 105-7, 163-74, 185-87, 191

Mithraism, 314-16Muhammad

call of, 72-73, 159-62character of, 71, 78-79, 81, 86-87,

174-81, 257death of, 82, 91followers of. See Muslimslife of, 70-82, 96, 111-12, 160, 165,

176-77, 198miracles of. See Miraclesmission of, 17, 55-57, 61, 69, 73-74,

77, 86-88, 96-97, 152revelation of. See Qur'anteachings of, 19, 23, 31, 36, 46-47, 57-

59, 65, 67-68, 73-74, 77, 97, 111-12, 114, 117, 128-29, 138, 299

titles of, 11, 15, 55-56, 66, 71, 86, 89-90, 97, 145, 152

veneration for, 82-90, 125, 145, 152wives of, 71, 79

Muslims, 15-33, 299-300, passim

Nation of Islam, 299, 331, 334Ninety-nine names ofAllah, 23-28, 137

Polygamy, 175-77Prophets

definition of, 52-54, 151function (purpose) of, 52-57, 69, 86-

88most i mportant, 11, 55-56, 63-66, 69,

71, 77, 82-90, 97-98, 125, 152,258

names of, 11, 46-47, 55-56, 88number of, 55nature (character) of, 46, 53, 151

Qur'ancompilation of, 91-94, 100, 196-200major themes of, 96-99, 103, 108,

109-10, 125, 127, 129, 136-38,145-46, 150

nature of, 62, 84, 90-95, 97, 99-108,139, 163, 183-95, 198-206, 209,276, 317

origin of, 72-75, 77, 90-94, 96, 99-101, 105-8, 139, 183-91, 196-99,201, 208, 276, 317

veneration of, 83, 90-91, 93-96, 99-108, 139, 183-91

Religions, other, 62, 98, 128, 129Resurrection

Christian view of, 233, 237, 250-51,254-55, 258-62, 279-81, 283,291-93, 315

Muslim view of, 117-18, 233, 279-80,282, 286, 289, 291-92

Revelation, abrogation of, 62, 98-99,201-2

SalvationChristian view of, 275, 178-79, 286,

290, 292-93, 315Muslim view of, 62, 78, 88, 109, 111-

13, 118-20, 123-30, 216, 278-79,289, 314

" Satanic Verses " , 74-75, 161, 198-99,201

Sects, Muslim, 297-300Shari ' a, 84Shi ' ites, 295-96Shirk, 20, 46, 62, 130, 136, 216, 268Sikhism, 299Sin

Christian view of, 278, 285, 292Muslim view of, 42-46, 278, 285unpardonable (shirk), 62, 129, 136,

216, 268, 285Sufis, 30, 48, 99, 143, 297-99Sunnah, 83Sunnis, 67, 83-84, 89, 102, 116, 162,

197-98,295-96

366 Index of Subjects

Tawhid, 21, 117, 121, 135 Wahhabis, 299Tawrat, 61, 215 Will of God. See God, will ofTorah, 213—14Trinity

Christian view of, 233, 252-53, 262,269—277, 315

Muslim view of, 140, 216, 233, 263-64, 269, 276—77, 280, 314

Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D., is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary.He has published countless articles in academic journals and has authoredover fifty books, including Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

Abdul Saleeb is a former Muslim who has intensively studied differencesbetween the two religions.

WHAT ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS OF ISLAM

AND HOW CAN CHRISTIANS RESPOND TO THEM ?

Answering Islam evaluates the claims of orthodox Islam and examines the evi-dence for the Christian counterclaim , preparing you with strong apologeticanswers. This revised edition contains more resources and updated informationthroughout.

"This book is a must for everyone concerned about defending the Christian faith.Geisler and his coauthor, a form er Muslim, have given one of the most comprehen-sive expositions and most complete evaluations of Islam in print."

—JOSH McDOWELL , author, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

"Answering Islam is a valuable tool for those wrestling with the theologicalthat separate one billion Muslims from personal faith in Jesus Christ ." "

—PATRICK CATE, president, International Missions, Inc.

"The Muslim presence in the United States continues to grow. It is important that wehave a clearly written and fairly presented statement of what Muslims believe andhow we as Christians may present the claims of Christ to them in a persuasive andloving way."

—RONALD NASH, Reformed - Theological Seminary

"This book is a theological masterpiece, the most lucid and comprehensive theologi-cal analysis and critique of Islam from a Christian perspective I have ever seen. It isinvaluable as a tool for understanding the most serious religious challenge toCh ristianity in the modern world "

—R. C. SPROUL, Ligonier Ministries